VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01216
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01216
Petitioner: Angel Silveyra
Filed: 2020-09-16
Decided: 2023-03-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-08
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 175000

AI-assisted case summary:
Angel Silveyra filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 16, 2020, alleging that he suffered injuries, including Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 8, 2018. Mr. Silveyra stated that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that he experienced residual effects of the injury for more than six months, and that there had been no prior award or settlement for his condition. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's GBS or any other injury. Despite this denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation on January 27, 2023. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as his decision. The decision awarded Angel Silveyra a lump sum of $175,000.00, payable by check to the Petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details of the GBS, diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received. Petitioner's counsel was Nancy Routh Meyers of Turning Point Litigation, and respondent's counsel was Amanda Pasciuto of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on March 3, 2023.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Angel Silveyra alleged that an influenza vaccine received on October 8, 2018, caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which was approved by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on March 3, 2023. The stipulation resulted in a lump sum award of $175,000.00 to Petitioner. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused GBS. Petitioner's counsel was Nancy Routh Meyers, and respondent's counsel was Amanda Pasciuto.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01216-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/27/2023) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1216V
UNPUBLISHED
ANGEL SILVEYRA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 27, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On September 16, 2020,Angel Silveyrafiled a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered injuries including Guillain-Barre
Syndrome(“GBS”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”)vaccine received on October 8, 2018.
Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed January 27, 2023, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner further alleges that
the vaccine was administered in the United States, he experienced the residual effects of
this injury for more than six months, and there has been no prior award or settlement of
a civil action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 18-
23, 26, 27;Stipulationat ¶¶3-5.“Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner
to suffer from GBS, or any other injury, or his current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on January 27, 2023, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as mydecision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $175,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01216-UNJ Document 42 Filed 03/03/23 Page 7 of 7