VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00799
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00799
Petitioner: A.B.
Filed: 2021-01-25
Decided: 2025-08-22
Vaccine: rotavirus
Vaccination date: 2018-03-14
Condition: intussusception
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 101170.32

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 25, 2021, Savanna and Michael Barton filed a petition on behalf of their son, A.B., alleging that his second rotavirus vaccine dose on March 14, 2018 caused intussusception. A.B. was born on November 13, 2017, making him about four months old at vaccination.

Two days after vaccination, A.B.'s mother called the pediatrician because he was fussy, pale, not eating, had diarrhea, and made a high-pitched cry. Later that day he woke from a short nap screaming, vomited, and had a diaper full of bright red blood. At the emergency department he had abdominal tenderness, a hard abdominal mass, and guaiac-positive stool. He was transferred by air to Akron Children's Hospital, where ultrasound showed extensive ileocolic intussusception extending to the rectum. Three air-contrast enema reduction attempts failed.

On March 17, 2018, surgeons attempted laparoscopic reduction but converted to an open transverse incision because the intussusception was swollen and difficult to reduce. The bowel was viable and no resection was required, but the surgery lasted more than four hours. A.B. remained hospitalized until March 22. After discharge, the record described loose mucous stools, recurrent crying episodes, antibiotic-related diarrhea, intermittent constipation, and later prolonged toileting problems; at a five-year visit he still had alternating loose and hard stools.

Respondent conceded Table intussusception, and Special Master Thomas L. Gowen found entitlement on February 17, 2022. On August 22, 2025, he awarded $100,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $1,170.32 in unreimbursed expenses, and future pain and suffering through an annuity paying $1,000.00 per year for life. The record before this update did not include the final proffer implementing the annuity.

Theory of causation field:
Second rotavirus vaccine on March 14, 2018 at age 4 months causing Table intussusception; onset two days later with fussiness, poor intake, pallor, diarrhea, high-pitched cry, vomiting, and bright red bloody stool. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; COMPENSATED by damages ruling. Key evidence: ED abdominal mass/guaiac-positive stool; ultrasound extensive ileocolic intussusception to rectum; three failed air enemas; open surgical reduction March 17, 2018; hospitalization until March 22; later loose stools/constipation/toileting issues. Award known: $100,000 past pain/suffering + $1,170.32 expenses + future $1,000/year annuity for life. SM Thomas L. Gowen; petition January 25, 2021; entitlement February 17, 2022; damages August 22, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00799-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/17/2022) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 26 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 2
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-799V
UNPUBLISHED
SAVANNA BARTON and MICHAEL Chief Special Master Corcoran
BARTON, parents of A.B., a minor,
Filed: February 17, 2022
Petitioners,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Rotavirus Vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES, Intussusception
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 25, 2021, Savanna Barton and Michael Barton, parents of son A.B., a
minor, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioners allege that A.B.
suffered intussusception as a result of receiving the rotavirus vaccination on March 14,
2018. Petition at 1. Petitioners further allege the vaccination was administered within the
United States, their son underwent inpatient surgery for his intussusception, and no
lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including the
petitioners, due to A.B.’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 15. 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 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 26 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 2
On February 2, 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. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioners have satisfied the criteria set forth
in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. Id. at 5.
Respondent further agrees that the scope of damages to be awarded is limited to A.B.’s
intussusception and its related sequelae only. 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_21-vv-00799-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-12
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/22/2025) regarding 50 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
-
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 22, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SAVANNA BARTON and MICHAEL BARTON *
*
Parents of A.B., a minor, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 21-799V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Patrick J. Kelly, Conway Homer, PC, Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON DAMAGES1
On January 25, 2021, Savanna Barton and Michael Barton (“petitioners”), filed a petition
for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their
minor son, A.B. 2 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.; Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioners allege that A.B.
suffered from an intussusception as a result of the rotavirus vaccine he received on March 14,
2018. Petition at Preamble. It was previously determined that petitioners successfully proved a
Table intussusception case, and thus, that they are entitled to compensation for their minor child,
A.B. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 24); Barton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, No. 21-
799V, 2022 WL 830206 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 17, 2022).
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned
intends to post this decision on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, with the E-Government
Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is
privileged or confidential; or (2) that include medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18 (b).
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012)
(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of
the Act.

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 8
As detailed below, I award a total of $100,000.00 in damages for past pain and suffering
and $1,000.00 per year for A.B.’s life expectancy, which shall be paid in the form of an annual
payment from an annuity to be purchased by the respondent. I also award a total of $1,170.32 in
out-of-pocket expenses to the petitioners.
I. Procedural History
Petitioners filed their petition for compensation on behalf of their minor child on January
25, 2021. (Petition). Thereafter, petitioners filed medical records and affidavits to support their
case. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report on February 2, 2022, indicating that petitioners have
“satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table…and the Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation.” Resp’t R. 4(c) Rept. (ECF No. 21). A Ruling on Entitlement finding that
petitioners are entitled to compensation was issued along with a Damages Order on February 17,
2022. Ruling on Entitlement; Damages Order (ECF No. 25). After the parties were unable to
informally resolve damages, petitioners filed a Memorandum in Support of Damages on April 5,
2023, requesting that petitioners be awarded $144,000.00 in past pain and suffering, $1,000.00
per year for the remainder of A.B.’s life in future pain and suffering, reduced to net present value,
and $1,170.32 in past unreimbursed expenses. Pet’r Mem. in Supp. of Damages at 38 (ECF No.
40). Respondent filed a Response on June 30, 2023, arguing that petitioners should be awarded
$50,000.00 in pain and suffering and $775.16 in unreimbursable expenses. Resp’t Resp. at 9
(ECF No. 42). Petitioners filed a reply to respondent’s response on July 13, 2023. (ECF No. 43).
The case was reassigned to my docket on January 3, 2025. Notice of Reassignment (ECF No.
48). I held a status conference with the parties on June 4, 2025, to discuss the issues in resolving
damages, and the parties requested that the Court issue a Decision on Damages.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Factual History
A.B. was born on November 13, 2017 Pet’r Ex. 6 at 1. On March 14, 2018, A.B. received
the second dose of the oral rotavirus vaccine. Two days later, on March 16, 2018. Mrs. Barton
called A.B.’s pediatrician, reporting that A.B was fussy, not eating, and had diarrhea. Pet’r Ex. 6
at 394. Specifically, Mrs. Barton noted that A.B. appeared pale and had a high pitch cry. Id. Mrs.
Barton recalled in her affidavit that later that day, A.B. awoke after a ten-minute nap “with a
painful blood curdling shriek.” Pet’r Ex. 12. A.B. had vomited all over himself, and, when Mrs.
Barton went to change A.B.’s diaper, it “was full of bright red blood.” Id. She was instructed to
bring A.B. to the emergency room.
A.B. was examined at the Mahoning Valley Hospital Emergency Department. There was
tenderness in the periumbilical area, and a hard mass in the lower right quadrant and upper left
2

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 8
quadrants, with guaiac positive stool3 and red fluid flowing from the rectum. The physicians
diagnosed an intussusception and contacted the Children’s Hospital of Akron. They arranged for
air transport because of significant deterioration and the likely need for prompt surgical attention.
Upon arrival at Children’s Hospital of Akron, the physicians reviewed an ultrasound
image showing a gas pattern consistent with an extensive ileocolic intussusception extending to
the rectum with frank blood dripping from the rectum. Surgery was notified. The child was sent
to radiology where an air contrast enema was attempted three times in an effort to reduce the
intussusception without success. The following day, March 17, 2018, A.B. was taken to the
operating room. They had significant difficulty in placing the necessary IVs for surgery, with
only one IV in the right lower extremity placed despite efforts at multiple locations. Ultimately,
the right subclavian vein was accessed with a 21-gauge needle and guidewire placed under
fluoroscopy and a central venous catheter was placed.
The abdominal surgery began laparoscopically and the surgeon observed that the right
side of the colon was not on the right side and the cecum was hypermobile and had crossed over
the midline. There was an ileocolic intussusception. Two additional ports were placed in the right
upper and lower quadrants in an attempt to reduce the intussusception laparoscopically, but
without success, as the intussusception was too swollen. The surgery was converted to an open
procedure through a right incision about 2 centimeters above the umbilicus extending across the
midline. The bowel was eviscerated, and the ileocolic intussusception was confirmed. Then the
bowel was milked out. The cecum and appendix were also intussuscepted into the right colon.
All were reduced. The cecum was edematous and bruised but appeared viable as did the ileum.
After the intussusception was reduced the right colon, the cecum, transverse colon, and the
sigmoid colon were in place and properly attached. The bowel was then replaced, and the
incision was closed. The surgery took four hours and 17 minutes. Pet’r Ex 6 at 185-87. A.B.
remained hospitalized until March 22, 2018.
Subsequent to his hospitalization, A.B. had multiple medical appointments over the
succeeding years with complaints of diarrhea and at time constipation. He had consultations with
the surgeon, his family doctor and a pediatric gastroenterologist in treating these issues. His
toilet training was prolonged. In the weeks following the surgery, he was described as having
very loose, mucous filled stools and periodically had the high-pitched cry which was similar to
that at the onset and was different from his normal cry. He had multiple medical visits
documenting several days of prolific diarrhea. He was also noted to have diarrhea in conjunction
with antibiotic use and intermittent constipation. As late as his five year old well child visit in
2023, the note recorded a long history of intermittent loose stools with hard stools. A.B. is now
3 Guaiac is indicative of occult blood in the stool.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 8
finally toilet trained, and sometimes his stools are stuck when he tries to pass them. Pet’r Ex. 17
at 9-10.
III. Discussion
a. Pain and Suffering
The Vaccine Act provides that a petitioner may recover “for actual and projected pain
and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury an award not to exceed
$250,000.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–15(a)(4). There is no mathematical formula for assigning a
monetary value to a person’s pain and suffering. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, No. 04-
1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. April 19, 2013). A “continuum of
injury” approach to pain and suffering damages, where the cap was reserved for the most severe
injuries and lower awards were made for less severe injuries, was created with a goal “to fairly
treat all petitioners.” Hocraffer v. Sec’y of Health Human Servs., No. 99-533V, 2007 WL
*914914, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 28, 2007). However, the Court of Federal Claims later
determined that this the “continuum” approach was not “rooted in statute or precedent.” Graves
v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579, 590 (2013).
In Graves, the Court set forth a different approach in which the first step is to assess an
individual petitioner’s pain and suffering by looking to the evidence on the record, without
regard to the $250,000 cap. Id. at 589-90 Only then as a second step, if the award would exceed
$250,000, must it be reduced to that maximum. See id. Though not binding on special masters,
the Graves approach has been found to be persuasive and is now the prevailing approach used.
See, e.g., I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *10
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Moran April 19, 2013) (“Under the interpretation of the statute offered in
Graves, cases that used the spectrum approach, such as Hocraffer and Long, are no longer useful
measuring points”); Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16.1670V, 2019 WL 1222925,
at *12 (Fed. Cl. Chief Spec. Mstr. Dorsey Feb. 1, 2019) (“it must be stressed that pain and
suffering is not based on a continuum”); Selling v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-
588V, 2019 WL 3425224, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oler May 2, 2019) (“Pain and suffering is
not, however, determined based on a continuum”); Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Corcoran July 29, 2019)
(“… special masters have generally accepted Graves’s methodology since issuance of that
decision… I will apply it herein as well, although I do so mindful of the need to consider the
overall strength of petitioner’s showing herein”), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 147
Fed. Cl. 131 (2020); W.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1364V, 2020 WL
5509686, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Chief Spec. Mstr. Corcoran Aug. 7, 2020) (“it must be stressed that pain
and suffering is not based on a continuum”). I have applied this approach as well, however, as
the award in this case does not approach the cap, these cases are not important to this decision
other than to the extent that they stand for the proposition that pain and suffering should be
decided based on the evidence in the case and without regard to a cap or a continuum.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 8
In assessing the entire record in awarding damages for pain and suffering, factors to
consider include “(1) the ability to understand the injury . . . (2) the degree of severity of the
injury; and (3) the potential number of years the individual is subjected to the injury.” I.D., 2013
WL 2448125 at *9 (internal citations omitted). I find it appropriate to also consider any
impairments in function and/or lost ability to participate in activities which the petitioner
previously enjoyed, as a result of the injury.
Petitioners primarily rely on two cases, Brooks v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs and
Neiman v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs, in their request for $144,000.00 in past pain and
suffering and $1,000.00 per year for the remainder of A.B.’s life in future pain and suffering.
Notably, the facts of these two cases are remarkably similar to the facts of the instant case. See
Brooks v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-563V, 2016 WL 2656110 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 26, 2016); Neiman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-631V, 2016 WL
6459618 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 22, 2016). As in the present case, both of these cases
involved substantial abdominal surgery. The primary differentiating fact is that the children in
Brooks and Neiman had sections of necrotic bowel and portions of the bowel was removed in
both cases, while A.B. did not require resection of bowel or other organs Otherwise, the clinical
courses of the children in those cases, and their residual symptoms are very similar to those of
A.B.
Pain and suffering damages are subjective. In the instant case, it is important to bear in
mind that such damages are for the pain and suffering of A.B. only, as the Vaccine Program only
compensates the vaccinee. While very distressful for the parents, the Act provides damages only
for the child. There can be little doubt that A.B. suffered significant pain at the time of the
intussusception. While the infant cannot verbally explain his pain, the sudden high pitched and
shrill cry is often noted in conjunction with an intussusception and appears to be associated with
severe abdominal pain when it occurs. The intussusception in this case resulted in the right
colon, cecum, and appendix being pushed from the right side of the abdominal cavity to the left
and extended all the way to the rectum from which physicians observed blood to be flowing.
The surgery involved a complicated process of obtaining adequate IV access prior to entering the
abdominal cavity with attempts made at multiple locations and ultimately requiring access for a
central catheter through the subclavian vein. Once the abdominal surgery began three,
laparoscopic ports were opened to try to reduce the intussusception which, because it was so
swollen, was not any more successful then the three attempts at reduction by air contrast enema.
A transverse incision was then made to perform an open procedure.
The persistent problems with diarrhea and constipation which have occurred and likely
will continue to some degree also cause discomfort as did the severe rash on the buttocks that
occurred several times in conjunction with the diarrhea. It is unlikely that A.B. will remember
the acute incident given his age at the time. However, he likely is quite aware of the bowel
management issues he has experienced. He also has a sizable transverse surgical scar about an
inch or so above the umbilicus and extending approximately six to eight inches across the
abdomen. The incision has healed well but the scar remains visible as of photos taken in 2023
and about which he may be self-conscious as he grows older.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 8
A.B. underwent an extensive surgery to address the severe displacement of his bowel,
right colon, cecum and appendix caused by the extensive intussusception. He has continued at
least through his five-year-old well child visit to have periodic issues with diarrhea and
constipation and has a sizable scar above the umbilicus and across his abdomen which will be
permanent. He undoubtedly endued significant pain up to and subsequent to the extensive
surgery he underwent and continues to have bowel management problems. Thus, I find an award
of $100,000.00 in past pain and suffering to be appropriate.
.
As the two children in Brooks and Neiman, A.B. continues to suffer from some residual
gastrointestinal problems, especially in conjunction with taking antibiotics for illnesses. He had
multiple medical appointments complaining of significant diarrhea. As noted at A.B.’s 5-year-
old well child visit on January 13, 2023, he has a “long history of loose stools with hard stools”
and “sometimes his bowels are stuck as he tries to pass them.” Pet’r Ex. 17 at 10. Earlier records
support the notation that A.B. has a long history of bowel issues. Specifically, at an appointment
on December 9, 2020 among others, it was noted that A.B. “has some diarrhea secondary to
antibiotics.” Pet’r Ex. 15 at 201. It is likely that he will continue to suffer similar symptoms
periodically over his lifetime. This is also consistent with the clinical courses in the Brooks and
Neiman children. Therefore, I find that an award of $1,000.00 per year for the life of A.B. is an
appropriate award for future pain and suffering.
Accordingly, I award $100,000.00 in past pain and suffering and $1,000.00 per year
over the life of A.B. in future pain and suffering.
b. Past Unreimbursed Expenses
The Vaccine Act contemplates out of pocket unreimbursable expenses which:
(i) Resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the 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,
developmental evaluation, special education, vocational training
and placement, case management services, counseling, emotional or
behavioral therapy, residential and custodial case and service
expenses, special equipment, related travel expenses, and facilities
determined to be reasonably necessary.
42 U.S.C. § 15 (a)(1)(B)(i-iii). In their memorandum in support of damages, petitioners request
$1,170.32 in past unreimbursed expenses “including mileage for travel to and from Akron
Children’s Hospital during A.B.’s admission and his subsequent medical visits, as well as
payments for outpatient medical visits.” Pet’r Mem. in Supp. of Damages at 20. Petitioner also
provided supporting documentation for these expenses. Pet’r Ex. 19, Tabs A-B (ECF No. 38-2).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 8
Specifically, petitioner submitted evidence of out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $238.22
for visits with A.B.’s gastroenterologist, Dr. Kent. Pet’r Ex. 19 Tab A. Petitioners also request
$932.10 in mileage reimbursement for travel to Akron Children’s Hospital. Pet’r Ex. 19 Tab B.
Petitioners note in their memorandum that they used the IRS business mileage rate for their
claim for mileage costs. The use of the IRS business mileage has been found to be reasonable in
several recent cases by the Chief Special Master, as opposed to the IRS medical mileage rate. See
e.g., Walter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1461V, 2024 WL 1299576, at *5 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2024). Moreover, in the present case, respondent did not contest petitioner’s
use of the business mileage rate and made no argument for the use of the medical mileage rate
instead. Therefore, I find it reasonable to use the IRS business mileage rate.
In his response to petitioner’s memorandum, respondent proposed “an award of
$775.16,” with no explanation as to how that number was reached, and no argument as to why
the full amount of petitioners’ proposed unreimbursable expenses should not be compensated.
The expenses submitted were either for reimbursement of the cost of care with a
gastroenterologist and for the parent’s travel costs for multiple outpatient medical visits
secondary to issues arising from bowel dysfunction and for Mr. Barton’s travel expenses in
driving twice a day to Akron Children’s Hospital from their home. These expenses were incurred
in caring for the child, and accordingly I find that they are reasonable and appropriate. Therefore,
I find that petitioners’ documented out of pocket expenses are reasonable and were related to the
vaccine injury. Thus, I award a total of $1,170.32 in past unreimbursable expenses to the
parents.
IV. Form of Award
Compensation may be awarded by way of annuity or in another manner “determined by
the special master to be in the best interests of the petitioner.” § 15(f)(4)(B). Given the age of
A.B., I find it to be in the best interest of A.B., that $100,000 in past pain and suffering be
awarded in lump sum upon establishment of an appropriate minor’s trust account for A.B. as
may be required under the state law of Ohio and that the $1,000 per year in future pain and
suffering for the remainder of A.B.’s life shall be provided in the form of annual payments from
an annuity. The annuity is to be purchased by the respondent with the requirement that it pay
$1,000.00 per year in each year of A.B.’s life on his birthday in that year. The reimbursement of
expenses as noted above shall be paid to the petitioners.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons above and based on consideration of the record as a whole, I find that
$100,000 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for A.B’s past pain and
suffering and that $1,000 per year over the life of A.B. represents a fair and appropriate award
7

Case 1:21-vv-00799-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 8
for future pain and suffering. I also find an award of $1,170.32 for past unreimbursable expenses
incurred by the petitioner’s in pursuing treatment for A.B. to be reasonable.
The parties shall file a proffer incorporating this ruling that will be the basis for
awarding compensation to A.B. within 30 days, by Wednesday, September 22, 2025.
Thereafter, a damages decision will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
8