VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00751
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00751
Petitioner: Brandon Farris
Filed: 2021-01-15
Decided: 2024-05-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-01-31
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 184899

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 15, 2021, Brandon Farris filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on January 31, 2019. Mr. Farris was 43 years old at the time of vaccination. His petition stated that approximately 11 days after receiving the vaccine, he began experiencing symptoms including congestion and muscle aches, followed by generalized body aches, numbness between his toes, generalized weakness, pain in his bilateral thighs and the dorsum of his feet, difficulty urinating, nausea, and a mild headache. He also reported bilateral tingling in his extremities and difficulty walking. His condition progressed, leading to hospitalization for fifteen days, including a five-day course of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) and inpatient rehabilitation. Medical records documented progressive weakness, pain, and difficulty with mobility, requiring assistance with walking and feeding tubes. He underwent physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech language therapy. Although he showed improvement over time, he experienced residual weakness, pain, and decreased range of motion in his right shoulder, which he reported continued to affect his professional trajectory and recreational pursuits. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Mr. Farris met the criteria for a Table injury. The parties were unable to agree on all damages components, leading to a hearing on March 28, 2024. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on May 24, 2024, awarding Mr. Farris $184,899.43 in total compensation. This amount comprised $175,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $3,514.69 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,384.74 for lost wages. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and Respondent was represented by Alexa Roggenkamp of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Brandon Farris, age 43, received an influenza vaccine on January 31, 2019. He alleged developing Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) approximately 11 days post-vaccination. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner met the criteria for a Table injury. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of causation or name any experts. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, awarded $184,899.43, consisting of $175,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $3,514.69 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,384.74 for lost wages. The decision was issued on May 24, 2024. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant and Respondent by Alexa Roggenkamp.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00751-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/01/2022) regarding 20 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 23 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0751V
UNPUBLISHED
BRANDON FARRIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 1, 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.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 15, 2021, Brandon Farris 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 he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as
a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on January 31, 2019. Petition
at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On January 31, 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
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 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 23 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 2
1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
revised Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”). Id. at 7.
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_21-vv-00751-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-24
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/16/2024) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0751V
BRANDON FARRIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 16, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 15, 2021, Brandon Farris 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 he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as
a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on January 31, 2019. Petition
at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of
Special Masters. Although entitlement was conceded, the parties could not agree on all
damages components, so the matter was designated for SPU “Motions Day,” and
argument was heard on March 28, 2024.
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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 10
For the reasons set forth below, and as represented during the hearing,3 I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $184,899.43, representing
$175,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $3,514.69 for past unreimbursable
expenses, and $6,384.74 for lost wages.
I. Pain and Suffering
A. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[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 awarding
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). Petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no precise formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and
suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“Awards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human 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 in the resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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
3 See Minute Entry dated April 16, 2024. The transcript of this hearing, which was not yet filed as of the
date of this Decision, is hereby incorporated into this Damages Decision by reference.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 10
in this case.”). And, of course, a special master may rely on his or her own experience
adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated that special masters would use their
accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual
claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering is not
determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109
Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
B. 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 his
awareness of his injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole, including the
medical records and affidavits, written briefs, and argument at the March 28th Motions
Day hearing. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and
non-SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. Based
upon the above, I note and find the following:
• Petitioner was administered both the flu and Tdap4 vaccines on January 31, 2019,
at Drive Wellness. Ex. 1 at 1. He was 43 years old at the time. See Ex. 2 at 19.
• On February 11, 2019 (11 days post-vaccination), Petitioner went to Dr. Tan’s
Walk-In Medical Center reporting a six-day history of congestion and muscle
aches. Ex. 12 at 2-5. Petitioner was assessed with an upper respiratory infection
and a “[p]ossible reaction to [f]lu vaccine.” Id. at 4. He was administered a Kenalog
injection and instructed to follow-up with his primary care caregiver. Id.
• Later that day, on February 11, 2019, Petitioner went to San Ramon Regional
Medical Center’s emergency department with a three-to-four-day history of
generalized body aches. Ex. 9 at 3-6. Petitioner reported that he had spoken with
his doctor and that he was “experiencing intermittent numbness between his toes
bilaterally without any other proximal symptoms.” Id. at 3. The medical record
indicates that Petitioner “look[ed] well” and that there was “low suspicion of [GBS].”
Id. at 6.
• On February 13, 2019, Petitioner was seen by Dr. Howard Yoshioka at Stanford
4 Petitioner does not allege that the Tdap vaccine is related to his later development of GBS. Petition at 1.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 10
Health Care. Ex. 5 at 54-60. He complained of generalized weakness and “pain to
bilateral thighs and the dorsum of both feet.” Id. at 54. It was also noted that
Petitioner had difficulty urinating and complained of nausea and a mild headache.
Id. Dr. Yoshioka noted that Petitioner “underwent lumbar puncture without
complication” and opined that Petitioner’s injury “might be transverse myelitis or
GBS syndrome although unusual for GBS to give pain localized to muscles. Also
may have Rhabdomyolysis causing his pain.” Id. at 58-59.
• Petitioner was also seen by Dr. Weihan Chu on February 13, 2019. Ex. 5 at 80-
85. Petitioner reported that after receiving the flu shot, he “developed bilateral [left
extremity] tingling, difficulty walking, generalized weakness and upper extremity
weakness.” Id. at 80. Petitioner further reported diffuse myalgia “like [he] was
getting the flu.” Id.
• Also on February 13, 2019, Petitioner was evaluated by Dr. Stan Tsong-Huei Lin,
a neurologist, for “acute onset of pain and progressive weakness of bilateral
extremities, suspected [GBS].” Ex. 5 at 139-142. Dr. Lin noted that although
Petitioner’s clinical syndrome was “most compatible with a diagnosis of acute
inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) due to GBS . . . the clinical
picture descending instead of ascending weakness is atypical.” Id. at 142. A five-
day course of intravenous immune globulin (“IVIG”) was recommended. Id.
• Petitioner was transferred to Stanford Health’s critical care unit on February 14,
2019 and was examined by Dr. John Wai Ying Yee for the chief complaint of
“[p]rogressive weakness from [GBS].” Ex. 5 at 85-91. Dr. Yee noted that an MRI
of Petitioner’s cervical and lumbar spine showed “multilevel enhancement along
the ventral nerve root, indicative of possible infectious, inflammatory or
autoimmune neuropathy, inclusive of [GBS]. Id. at 86. Petitioner was assessed
with “acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP)/GBS [w]ith
quadriplegia” and low back pain. Id. at 91.
• A Drive Wellness note, dated February 15, 2019, indicates that Petitioner’s wife
called to report that Petitioner was hospitalized because of suspected GBS. Ex. 2
at 28. Drive Wellness reported the incident to the vaccine adverse event reporting
system. Id. at 27-28.
• Between February 15 and February 19, 2019, Petitioner underwent five days of
IVIG treatment. Ex. 5 at 230, 235, 248, 263, 275, 526-529. A medical note detailing
Petitioner’s hospital stay indicates that “[Petitioner’s] weakness was noted to
fluctuate in its severity after completion of his IVIG, thereby prompting Nephrology
consult on 2/23 for possible initiation of plasmapheresis given concerns of disease
4

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 10
progression. However . . . plasmapheresis was deferred given that [Petitioner] has
since improved. [Petitioner] continues to have significant weakness of all
extremities . . . but is gradually improving.” Id. at 94-95.
• Petitioner was seen by Dr. Charlene Hu at Stanford Valley Care Neurology on
February 26, 2019. Ex. 5 at 134-138. Dr. Hu’s notes reflect that Petitioner “acutely
developed pain and weakness on Feb 8, started IV Ig on Feb 13, but Cont’ getting
worse until Feb 18, 2019, then fast improving since then, with some fluctuation.”
Id. at 134. Nevertheless, Dr. Hu noted that Petitioner still experienced pain “at the
thighs and low back” and that he continued to experience difficulty manipulating
his fingers. Id. On exam, Petitioner’s speech was soft and he exhibited “significant
ataxia . . . on both UE and hands, with very poor fine motor” skills. Id. at 137. Dr.
Hu opined that Petitioner’s GBS was improved at 60-65% and was assessed with
“elevated LFT” and “[n]europathic pain.” Id. at 138.
• During his inpatient stay, Petitioner underwent intensive physical therapy,
occupational therapy, speech language therapy, consultations with neurology,
nephrology, hepatology and gastroenterology. Ex. 5 at 1-274, 382.
• On February 27, 2019, Petitioner was admitted to John Muir Medical Center for
inpatient rehabilitation services. Ex. 3 at 24. On admission, he showed “weakness
in all limbs” and was noted to be “functioning well below his usual baseline.” Id. at
25.Petitioner required placement of a nasogastric tube for feeding and wound care
for a gluteal cleft. Id. at 341.
• Petitioner was discharged from John Muir Medical Center on March 16, 2019. Ex.
3 at 16-23. The discharge note indicates that Petitioner could function
independently or independently with modification on all aspects of his Functional
Independency Measurement. Id. at 19-20. The discharge note further indicates
that Petitioner could walk with the assistance of a gait belt, front wheel walker or
hiking poles. Id. at 20.
• Petitioner was seen by Dr. Erik Gracer, a family medicine physician, on March 18,
2019. Ex. 11 at 34-41. The medical notes indicated that Petitioner had atrophy of
the bilateral lower extremities and an abnormal gait. Id. at 36. Dr. Gracer remarked
that Petitioner had been walking with the assistance of a cane and continued to
have “persistent waxing and waning pain to his lower back throughout the day.” Id.
at 34. Petitioner rated his pain as a five on a ten-point scale but noted that it “will
become 7/10 when lying on his back.” Id. Petitioner was again diagnosed with GBS
and tramadol. Id. at 40.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 10
• On April 9, 2019, Petitioner called Drive Wellness to confirm that his GBS
diagnosis had been reported to VAERS. Ex. 2 at 26. The phone note indicates that
this injury had been reported that that Petitioner “is feeling better and is optimistic
for his recovery.” Id.
• On April 18, 2019, Petitioner returned to San Ramon Family Medicine Center for
a follow up visit with Dr. Gracer. Ex. 11 at 26-30. The medical note indicates that
Petitioner was “walking daily and is trying to maintain active although he moves
slow.” Id. at 26. The medical note also reflects that Petitioner was “able to care for
himself and maintain activities of daily living. No falls. No longer using cane.” Id. at
26-27.
• Petitioner underwent an initial physical therapy evaluation on April 23, 2019. Ex.
10 at 53. Petitioner reported that his primary concern was “[m]obility and
ambulation, in particular” and it was noted that his “[s]ymptoms prevent [his] ability
to independently walk long distances with safety and stability.” Id. Petitioner
described “center lower back, right thigh, left thigh pain as aching, weak” and rated
his pain, at worst, as a six on a ten-point scale. Id. At best, his pain was rated as
a three on the same ten-point scale. Id.
• Petitioner attended ten physical therapy appointments through June 10, 2019. Ex.
10 at 50. The discharge summary, dated July 23, 2019, indicates that Petitioner
had returned to swimming at least 3,000 yards and that his “[c]adence and distance
walking” had improved. Id. at 50. Petitioner was also noted to be “[f]eeling
stronger.” Id.
• Petitioner was seen by Dr. Stan T. Lin, a neurologist, on May 3, 2019 for “follow-
up of AIDP due to [GBS].” Ex. 6 at 5-8. Dr. Lin noted that Petitioner continued to
recover most of his strength, “except for residual right shoulder weakness and mild
weakness in the lower extremities.” Id. at 5. Petitioner’s physical exam revealed
“mild proximal weakness in the hip flexors, more on the left” and “weakness in the
bilateral toe extensors.” Id. It was further noted that Petitioner would likely return
to work within a month and that while he was able to walk without assistance, he
was unable to walk on his heels or toes. Id.
• Petitioner was again seen by Dr. Gracer on May 30, 2019. Ex. 11 at 20-23. The
notes documenting this appointment indicate that although Petitioner was “feeling
generally well,” he was “not back to his previous baseline.” Id. at 20. It was further
noted that he “continue[d] to have back pain and generalized fatigue with loss of
range of motion to the [right] shoulder and arm.” Id.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 10
• On August 30, 2019, Petitioner attended an additional appointment with Dr.
Gracer. Ex. 11 at 15-17. Petitioner reported that despite a continuation of
decreased range of motion in his right arm, he had seen an overall improvement
and recently returned to work. Id. at 15. Petitioner also reported that he was
“waking up frequently throughout the night” due to what he believed might be
ongoing anxiety. Id.
• Petitioner received treatment for insomnia on January 30 and June 11, 2020. Ex.
11 at 4-6, 9-10.
• On April 16, 2021, Petitioner was seen via a telehealth visit by Dr. Gracer for a
“[s]houlder [p]roblem.” Ex. 14 at 1-2. Petitioner reported that he had “ongoing
soreness” in his right shoulder and decreased range of motion, “weakness with
overhead activities,” with the “feeling that [his] muscles don’t react as well-can’t
move as fast or as quickly.” Id. at 1. Petitioner was assessed with chronic right
shoulder pain and a winged scapula on his right side. Id. at 2. Dr. Gracer noted
that Petitioner was still experiencing “generalized weakness with some residual
weakness” status post “GBS 2019.” Id.
• In Petitioner’s December 21, 2022 affidavit, he states that his GBS caused a
setback in his career. Ex. 17 at 1. Specifically, he avers that prior to his injury, he
managed six people and was on a trajectory to get a promotion – however, after
taking three months off to recover from his illness, he struggled physically and
mentally and was unable to maintain the same work schedule. Id. Petitioner further
avers that after realizing that he could no longer continue in his same role, he found
another position with fewer responsibilities and less pay. Id. Petitioner also avers
that while he continues to swim for exercise and relaxation, it is no longer possible
for him to swim competitively. Id.
• In Petitioner’s March 22, 2024 affidavit, he states that he continues to suffer from
permanent nerve damage to his right shoulder blade and avers that “my life has
been reshaped by [GBS] leaving indelible marks on my physical and emotional
well-being, as well as my professional trajectory and recreational pursuits.” Ex. 18
at 2.
Petitioner’s medical records and affidavits provide a credible description of the pain
he experienced throughout the duration of his injury. Petitioner asserts that he “suffered
a dramatic injury which has greatly impacted his health and his life as a whole,” and that
his “lengthy in-patient treatment, intense suffering at the nadir of the GBS, and persisting
sequela” warrant an award of $250,000.00 (the statutory maximum) for his pain and
suffering. Brief at 7, Reply at 15.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 8 of 10
Respondent on the other hand, argues that “[Petitioner’s] clinical course and
treatment documented by his medical records demonstrates a less severe course of GBS
than others, comparatively speaking.” Response at 9. As a result, Respondent proposes
a pain and suffering award of no more than $114,500.00.
As I have noted in prior decisions, GBS constitutes a particularly frightening type
of vaccine injury – and, as a result, a higher-than-average pain and suffering award is
appropriate. See Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL
2666685 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021). Nevertheless, “considerations that
always impact how a pain and suffering award is calculated – level of pain, length of
hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation, degree and number of procedures for
treatment, duration of treatment, and overall recovery – bear . . . on the final figure to be
awarded.” Weidner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 2023 WL 8110729, at *6 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Oct. 13, 2023). Here, Petitioner’s injury required intrusive treatment, including
hospitalization for fifteen days, a five-day course of IVIG, an MRI, and consultations with
various specialists. Petitioner also spent seventeen days in in-patient rehabilitation
(where he endured a nasogastric tube for feeding), participated in physical therapy, and
consistently sought follow-up treatment for his ongoing symptoms throughout the spring
and summer of 2019. While Petitioner experienced “some decreased range of motion in
his right arm” during an August 30, 2019 exam, he was nonetheless noted to have
improved overall. And while Petitioner maintains that he continues to suffer from the
residual effects of GBS, the final treatment record is dated April 16, 2021 (approximately
two years after the start of his symptoms). At that time, Petitioner was assessed with
chronic right shoulder pain, a winged scapula on his right side, and generalized
weakness.
Petitioner did not offer any comparable reasoned decisions in which $250,000.00
was awarded for pain and suffering for a person who experienced GBS but without
notable and irreversible deficiencies. Instead, he cites Graves, 109 Fed. Cl. at 592, for
the proposition that pain and suffering should not be determined on a continuum “with
only the most severely injured receiving the maximum award and those with lesser
injuries receiving lower awards.” Brief at 7. Although Graves does not control the outcome
of this case, “it offers a reasoned understanding of the issues involved in pain and
suffering calculations and underscores the importance of evaluating pain and suffering
first and foremost on the basis of the injured party’s own experience.” See, e.g., Alonzo
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1157V, 2023 WL 5846682 at *11 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 14, 2023). Nevertheless, I also consider cases involving similarly
situated petitioners in my determination of an appropriate award for pain and suffering.
See supra at Part II(A).
8

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 9 of 10
To that end, Respondent presented one case for comparison in his brief (Shankar
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1328V, 2022 WL 2196407 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 5, 2022) (awarding $135,000.00 for pain and suffering) and, only three days
prior to the hearing, filed an additional comparable (Granville v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 21-2098, 2023 WL 6441388 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 30, 2023)(awarding
$92,500.00 in pain and suffering). However, I find that the facts of those cases are
distinguishable, and Respondent’s recommended award of $114,500.00 to be too
modest. Moreover, while Petitioner cites to Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 17-428, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019) for the proposition
that a negative effect on a petitioner’s career should be taken into account, the parties
have reached an agreement on an award for lost wages, and overall I do not in this case
discern circumstances that suggest the pain and suffering award should take into account
those kinds of considerations.
I find that Petitioner’s course of treatment is most similar to the petitioner in Longo,
where a pain and suffering award of $160,000.00 was granted. Longo v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 21-844, 2023 WL 9326039 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 20, 2023). The Longo
petitioner experienced a mild-to-moderate case of GBS which was promptly diagnosed
and for which he received appropriate treatment with IVIG. Although the Longo petitioner
underwent more physical therapy than Mr. Farris (36 sessions in approximately four
months), like Petitioner, he experienced a good recovery despite reporting mild symptoms
for at least two years. Nevertheless, his course of hospitalization was less than Mr.
Farris’s (six days instead of fifteen), and he did not require in-patient rehabilitation. These
differences militate in favor of a higher award.
Accordingly, balancing the severity and overall course of Petitioner’s moderate
GBS injury, and considering the arguments presented by both parties at the hearing, a
review of the relevant caselaw and the written record, I find that $175,000.00 in total
compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable in this case.
II. Award for Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Petitioner also requests $3,514.69 in past unreimbursable expenses. Brief at 15.
Respondent does not dispute this sum. Response at 14. Therefore, Petitioner is awarded
this amount without adjustment.
III. Award for Lost Wages
Petitioner requests $6,384.74 in lost earnings. Brief at 15. Respondent does not
dispute this sum. Response at 14. Therefore, Petitioner is awarded this amount without
adjustment.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00751-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/24/24 Page 10 of 10
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $184,899.43, (representing $175,000.00 for Petitioner’s past
pain and suffering, $3,514.69 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,384.74 for
lost wages) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, Brandon Farris. 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 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.
10