VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01295
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01295
Petitioner: Jyl Ann Poteet
Filed: 2022-02-04
Decided: 2024-04-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-03
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 160000

AI-assisted case summary:
Jyl Ann Poteet filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) caused by an influenza vaccine she received on October 3, 2017. The respondent conceded that Ms. Poteet was entitled to compensation, agreeing that her condition met the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. Following the concession of entitlement, the parties were unable to resolve damages on their own, leading to a decision awarding damages. The court awarded Ms. Poteet $160,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. The decision noted that while Ms. Poteet experienced severe initial symptoms requiring hospitalization and strong pain medication, and continued to suffer residual effects like fatigue and balance difficulties for several years, her symptoms were not deemed severe enough to warrant future pain and suffering compensation. The court also considered that some of her ongoing symptoms could be attributed to her age and pre-existing co-morbidities, such as diabetes and heart disease. The award was based on the severity and duration of her GBS illness, drawing comparisons to similar cases, and was determined to be fair and reasonable for her past pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01295-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/04/2022) regarding 27 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1295V
UNPUBLISHED
JYL ANN POTEET, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 4, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 30, 2021, Jyl Ann Poteet filed 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 she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)
which was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine she received on October 3, 2017.
Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 21. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the
United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her GBS for more than six months,
and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation
for her GBS. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 19-20. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling 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 Ruling 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.
2 National 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-01295-UNJ Document 29 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 2
On February 4, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at
2. Specifically, Respondent believes “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 4. Respondent
further agrees that “based on the case record as it now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied
all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01295-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/27/2024) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1295V
JYL ANN POTEET, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 27, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 30, 2021, Jyl Ann Poteet filed 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 she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
which was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine she received on October 3, 2017.
Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 21. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of
the Office of Special Masters. After Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties were
unable to resolve damages on their own,3 so I ordered briefing on the matter.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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.
2 National 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 (2018).
3 Although I issued the ruling finding Petitioner entitled to compensation on February 4, 2022 (ECF No. 27),
Petitioner did not communicate her demand to Respondent until late July 2022 (ECF No. 34). Following
Respondent’s response in late September 2022 (ECF No. 37), the parties indicated they had reached an
impasse in their discussions (ECF No. 38). They completed briefing regarding the issue of damages on
April 6, 2023. ECF Nos. 41-43.

Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount $160,000.00, reflecting actual pain and suffering. Petitioner is not,
however, entitled to compensation for expected future pain and suffering.
I. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of GBS claims, were
2

Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 7
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of
vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
II. The Parties’ Arguments
Emphasizing the severe neck pain and headaches that accompanied her GBS
illness, required significant pain medication, and necessitated a transfer to the critical care
unit during her hospitalization, as well as significant and long-term residual symptoms
(fatigue, gait abnormalities, tingling, and balance difficulties) which she maintains
continued for more than five years, Petitioner asserts that she is entitled to an award of
$160,000.00 for past pain and suffering, plus a future award of $600 per year. Petitioner’s
Motion for Ruling on the Record on Damages (“Motion”), filed Jan. 30, 2023, at 1-2, ECF
No. 41. To support the duration she alleges, Petitioner provided affidavits from herself,
her daughter (Kala Zegadlo), and several co-workers and friends (Drs. Thomas Binzer
and Rick Ford), describing the limitations imposed by her GBS illness and difficulties
Petitioner continues to experience. Exhibits 12-17. Acknowledging that her hospitalization
was not lengthy, and she did not pursue inpatient rehabilitation or outpatient therapy,
Petitioner insists that she returned to work after three weeks, not by choice, but due to
“her concern that she might lose her job” as a surgical nurse. Motion at 18.
Petitioner favorably compares her circumstances to those experienced by the
petitioners in Robinson, Gross, and Johnson5 – cases involving past pain and suffering
awards ranging from $160,000.00 to $180,000.00. Motion at 26-30. She observes that
these petitioners also suffered initial GBS illnesses described as mild to moderate in
severity, but experienced ongoing sequelae for years thereafter. Id. She emphasizes that
the Gross petitioner similarly declined to pursue the offered outpatient therapy. Id. at 26.
However, she offers several distinctions between her condition and that of the Gross
petitioner, such as her need for additional medication to control her ongoing pain and
evidence showing that “Mrs. Gross’s ongoing symptoms were attributed by her treating
neurologist, in significant part, to her pre-existing diabetes.” Id. at 27.
assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were
reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5 Robinson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0088V, 2018 WL 5820967 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
31, 2021) (awarding $160,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021), review denied, 154 Fed. Cl. 109
(2021) (awarding $160,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2018) (awarding $180,000.00 for actual
pain and suffering).
3

Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 4 of 7
In contrast, Respondent argues that Petitioner should be awarded only $77,500.00
for past pain and suffering, and insists the record does not support compensation for any
future component. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion (“Response”), filed
Mar. 15, 2023, at 1, 14, ECF No. 42. Agreeing with Petitioner’s characterization of the
acute phase of her GBS illness as mild to moderate, he disputes Petitioner’ s description
of her later symptoms. Id. at 8-11. And he attributes at least a portion of Petitioner’s later
symptoms to the requirements of her job, which often dictated that she remain on her feet
for fifteen hours, or to the effects of several unrelated conditions. He thus insists that
“given [P]etitioner’s significant co-morbidities, there is preponderance of evidence that
her ongoing symptoms are not exclusively or even primarily attributable to her GBS.” Id.
at 9.
Respondent also maintains the comparable cases cited by Petitioner underscore
why a lower pain and suffering award in this case is appropriate. Response at 11-13. For
example, he emphasizes the significant outpatient therapy attended by the Johnson and
Robinson petitioners, and more severe symptoms experienced by the Johnson petitioner
which prevented her from returning to work for three months. Id. at 11, 13. And, for even
those cases, Respondent insists that the amounts he proposed during informal damages
discussions were more appropriate. Id. at 12-13.
In her reply, Petitioner objects to Respondent’s contention that some of the
residual symptoms she experienced could be attributed to unrelated co-morbidities.
Petitioner’s Reply to Response (“Reply”), filed Apr. 6, 2023, at 1-8. Citing specific medical
record entries, she insists that none of her treating physicians attributed her complaints
to a condition other than GBS. Id. at 3 (citing Exhibit 5 at 128 (containing the opinion of
Petitioner’s cardiologist)). She also disputes some of the diagnoses mentioned by
Respondent, such as osteoarthritis of the right knee and peripheral venous insufficiency.
Reply at 8-14.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her
awareness of her GBS injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
In performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including the
medical records, affidavits, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents.
I considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU GBS cases
4

Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 5 of 7
and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases.6 However, I ultimately base my
determination on the circumstances of this case.
As the parties agree, the initial phase of Petitioner’s GBS illness was mild to
moderate – involving a five-day hospitalization (from November 8 to 12, 2017) and daily
IVIG treatment. Her symptoms included severe headache and neck pain which required
strong pain medication throughout her hospitalization and triggered a move to the intense
care unit (“ICU”) on the third day.7 Although she gained significant relief from the
administered IVIG therapy, Petitioner continued to experience symptoms. After her
discharge, Petitioner returned to the emergency room four days later due to continued
numbness in her hands and feet. Exhibit 10 at 13. At her November 21, 2017
appointment, Petitioner’s neurologist prescribed additional medication (Tizandine) to
address her continued neck pain. Exhibit 8 at 10-13.
Although Petitioner returned to work in early December 2017, she continued to
require medication – Gabapentin at night and Tizanidine during the weekends. Exhibit 8
at 14-17. And she has provided detail affidavits from her daughter and co-workers, that
support her assertion of ongoing sequelae. For example, Dr. Ford, an orthopedic surgeon
whom Petitioner often assisted during surgery, states that Petitioner’s ability to work long
hours in the operating room has never returned – causing him to alert his surgical
schedule, that Petitioner often has to spread her arms or hold on to railings to assist in
her balance, and that Petitioner is unable to take needed nerve pain medications “during
a work week due to sudation side effects.” Exhibit 12 at 1.
The scarcity of medical treatment during 2018 is understandable considering
Petitioner, as a health care provider, was aware that such residual GBS symptoms often
require additional time to abate, and can only be managed. During appointments with her
cardiologist and primary care provider, Petitioner continued to mention symptoms that her
treating physicians agreed could be attributed to her GBS illness. E.g., Exhibit 5 at 128
6 Statistical data for all GBS cases resolved in SPU by proffered amounts from inception through January
1, 2024 reveals the median amount awarded to be $171,133.72. The awards in these cases - totaling 364,
have typically ranged from $128,645.56 to $256,835.75, representing cases between the first and third
quartiles and awards comprised of all categories of compensation – including lost wages. 47 cases include
the creation of an annuity to provide for future expenses.
Past pain and suffering amounts awarded in substantive decisions issued in 34 SPU GBS cases range
from $92,500.00 to $192,500.00, with an additional case involving annuity payments. The median amount
past pain and suffering award in these 35 cases was $165,000.00, with awards falling within the first and
third quartiles ranging from $155,000.00 to $180,000.00.
7 The medical records show Petitioner required Dilaudid, Norco, and Tramadol throughout her
hospitalization to combat her headache and neck pain. Exhibit 7 at 321-326. In the early morning of
November 10, 2017, the third day of her hospitalization, Petitioner was transferred to the critical care unit
due to her increased neck pain. Id. at 280. Dilaudid, Norco, and Tramadol are all strong pain medications.
See DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY at 520, 878-879, 1290, 1950 (32nd ed. 201 ).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 6 of 7
(reporting ongoing fatigue due to GBS in September 2020). And, if even they did not rise
to the level that warranted further treatment, I recognize Petitioner was unable to engage
in activities she previously enjoyed, such as horseback riding and barrel racing. See
Exhibit 16 at ¶¶ 14-15; Exhibit 17 at ¶ 5 (2nd affidavits of Petitioner and Dr. Ford).
Nevertheless, Petitioner was able to perform the very demanding requirements of
her job. As early as December 2017, approximately one month after her hospitalization,
she reported doing better in the mornings, possessing the dexterity needed to perform
sutures during surgery, and a lack of sleepiness while driving home, but some weakness
and fatigue at the end of the day. Exhibit 8 at 14. Although I accept Petitioner’s assertions
that she returned to work sooner due to a fear of losing her job, and performed any
needed tasks despite her ongoing sequelae,8 her actions show that her symptoms were
not as severe as she may now contend.
Furthermore, Respondent has persuasively established that other factors
(Petitioner’s age and co-morbidities) would have logically contributed to any ongoing
fatigue and difficulties performing her work duties. The medical records show that
Petitioner experienced syncope and exertional dyspnea in early 2019, and suffered from
edema in her lower extremities (worse in her left leg) due to venous insufficiency in late
2019 and early 2020. E.g., Exhibit 5 at 120; Exhibit 8 at 27, 30. In addition, prior to her
GBS illness Petitioner suffered from diabetes (though well-controlled), heart disease
which required the placement of a stent in 2015, and history of seizures due to venous
anomaly in the brain, although she had avoided any seizure for years through medication.
E.g., Exhibit 4 at 7; Exhibit 5 at 17-18; Exhibit 8 at 6.
I find that Petitioner’s circumstances most closely mirror those experienced by the
Gross petitioner, who received the same past pain and suffering award Petitioner
espouses. Both petitioners experienced significant improvement after a five-day course
of IVIG therapy, but suffered continued residual symptoms for several years. Gross, 2021
WL 2666685, at *4-5 However, the ongoing symptoms in both cases were not severe
enough to warrant further treatment and could be attributed, in part, to other conditions.
Id.
Still, as I have explained previously (often at expedited “Motions Day” hearings),
GBS pain and suffering awards generally should be higher than those awarded to SIRVA
claimants, and statistical data derived from past awards supports that premise. See supra
note 6. Thus, Petitioner’s pain and suffering award should be greater than the $77,500.00
proposed by Respondent. Weighing all of the above, I deem the amount proposed by
8 This assertion is supported not only by Petitioner’s affidavit (Exhibit 16), but also by entries in the medical
records. See, e.g., Exhibit 11 at 4.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01295-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/03/24 Page 7 of 7
Petitioner ($160,000.00) to be fair and reasonable.
However, I do not include any component of damages for future pain and suffering.
Future pain and suffering awards are appropriate “only for cases where a strong showing
is made that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability, or there are other
extenuating circumstances that justify inclusion of a future component.” Accetta v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1731V, 2021 WL 1718202, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 31, 2021). In this case, Petitioner has not established that the sequela of her SIRVA
continued beyond the very mild – yet improving - symptoms she reported in 2020, and
she suffered from co-morbidities which could account for, at least a portion, of these
difficulties. I find the record does not establish a notable permanent loss that would justify
this component of damages.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $160,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s past/actual pain and suffering,9 and no
future/projected pain and suffering award is warranted.
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $160,000.00,
representing compensation for actual pain and suffering in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would
be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
10 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.
7