VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00831
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00831
Petitioner: Peter Weil
Filed: 2021-02-01
Decided: 2023-02-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-26
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 141331

AI-assisted case summary:
Peter Weil filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 1, 2021, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) following receipt of an influenza vaccine administered on September 26, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Mr. Weil met the criteria for a flu-GBS Table injury and was entitled to compensation. A ruling on entitlement was entered in Mr. Weil's favor on August 6, 2021. The parties were unable to agree on damages, specifically compensation for pain and suffering. Mr. Weil, who was 61 years old at the time of vaccination, presented to urgent care on October 6, 2019, complaining of numbness, tingling, and weakness in his legs that began the previous day, leading to falls. He was evaluated at the emergency department by Dr. Marish Shah, who diagnosed GBS, noting a history of recent influenza and shingles vaccines. Neurologist Ditte Primdahl further examined Mr. Weil, confirming the likely diagnosis of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) and initiating treatment with IVIG. Mr. Weil began physical therapy on October 7, 2019, exhibiting weakness and balance issues. His condition worsened during hospitalization, with proximal upper extremity weakness and sensory changes reported. He was discharged from the hospital on October 10, 2019, and began a twenty-day stay at a rehabilitation hospital. Upon discharge from rehabilitation on October 30, 2019, he still required a wheelchair and walker for mobility and experienced numbness and reduced strength. He continued physical and occupational therapy, and by December 18, 2019, he reported feeling nearly back to baseline, though with some residual hip weakness and numbness in his feet. By May 20, 2020, his strength had completely returned, though he still reported occasional gait imbalance and numbness in his right foot. He continued to experience minor bladder irritation, lingering right foot numbness, and occasional low back pain in subsequent check-ups. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision awarding Mr. Weil $140,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,331.67 for unreimbursed expenses, for a total award of $141,331.67. The Special Master found Mr. Weil's GBS to be on the moderate end of the severity spectrum, noting his intense initial treatment period and subsequent significant improvement, which distinguished his case from more severe GBS awards. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Meghan Murphy.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Peter Weil, age 61, received an influenza vaccine on September 26, 2019. He developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table for influenza vaccines. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner met the Table criteria. The case proceeded to a damages determination. Petitioner experienced onset of symptoms approximately nine days post-vaccination, including leg numbness, tingling, and weakness, leading to falls. He was hospitalized, received IVIG treatment, and underwent rehabilitation. Medical records indicate improvement over several months, with residual numbness in his right foot and occasional balance issues reported. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $140,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,331.67 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $141,331.67. The Special Master determined the award based on the severity and duration of the GBS, finding it to be on the moderate end of the spectrum due to a relatively quick recovery and limited long-term sequelae compared to other GBS cases. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Meghan Murphy.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00831-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-09-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/06/2021) regarding 14 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 16 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-831V
UNPUBLISHED
PETER WEIL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 6, 2021
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.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 1, 2021, Peter Weil 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 SUFFERED Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”)
following the receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 26, 2019.
Petition at ¶¶ 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On August 6, 2021, 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 has concluded that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 16 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for a
flu/GBS Table injury. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine 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_21-vv-00831-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-06
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/06/2023) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-831V
UNPUBLISHED
PETER WEIL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 6, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Damages;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-
Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 1, 2021, Peter Weil 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 suffered from Guillain Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 26, 2019. Petition at
1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters
(the “SPU”), and although entitlement has been found in the Petitioner’s favor, the parties
could not agree to damages.
1 Because this unpublished fact 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 fact 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-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons described below, I award $140,000.00 in damages, representing
compensation for actual pain and suffering, plus $1,331.67 representing out-of-pocket
unreimbursed expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was initiated on February 1, 2021. On August 6, 2021, Respondent filed
a Rule 4(c) Report recommending compensation because Petitioner satisfied the Table
criteria for a flu-GBS claim. ECF No. 13. A ruling on entitlement was therefore entered on
August 6, 2021. ECF No. 14. The parties reached a tentative agreement on unreimbursed
expenses, but were unable to resolve pain and suffering. ECF No. 23. Briefs were
submitted in support of damages by both parties on March 25, 2022. ECF Nos. 25, 27.
II. Petitioner’s Medical Records
Mr. Weil was sixty-one when he received a flu vaccine on September 26, 2019.
Ex. 1 at 3.
On October 6, 2019 (ten days after his vaccination), Petitioner presented to urgent
care complaining of numbness, tingling, and weakness in both legs that started a day
earlier. Ex. 5 at 58. Petitioner reported that he had “bilateral leg pain for 30 hours”, along
with loss of strength. Id. at 57-58. He also reportedly fell that morning. Id. at 58. An exam
indicated his deep tendon reflexes in his knees were absent, and he exhibited decreased
knee and hip flexion. Petitioner was sent to the emergency department for further
evaluation. Id. at 58-59. As he was leaving the urgent care facility, Petitioner tripped and
fell in the lobby. Ex. 3 at 33.
Petitioner presented to the University of Wisconsin’s emergency department on
October 6, 2019, and was evaluated by Dr. Marish Shah. Ex. 3 at 15, 21, 23. Dr. Shah
noted Petitioner had abnormal reflexes and muscle tone, and was diagnosed with GBS
due to his “history of recent influenza and shingles vaccines….” Id. at 26-29. Petitioner
underwent an MRI and a lumbar puncture, and was further examined by neurologist Ditte
Primdahl. Id. at 58-60. Dr. Primdahl noted that the mostly likely proper diagnosis was
AIDP (acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy), and ordered Petitioner be
admitted for continued workup and treating with IVIG. Id. at 60.
On October 7, 2019, Petitioner began physical therapy. Ex. 3 at 107. At that time,
Petitioner exhibited weakness, required total assistance to climb five steps with a railing,
was unable to perform any heel to shin movements, and exhibited balance issues due to
decreased sensation in his legs. Id. at 109-110.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 9
During Petitioner’s hospitalization, Petitioner’s condition worsened and he
experienced proximal upper extremity weakness and mild progression of sensory
changes. Ex. 3 at 63. He also reported overnight pain in his buttocks and hips and
headaches from the IVIG treatment. Id. at 63, 78, 89. Petitioner was discharged on
October 10, 2019. Id. at 61-67. At that time, his strength was improving. Id. at 63.
On October 10, 2019, Petitioner began a twenty-day stay at the University of
Wisconsin Health Rehabilitation Hospital. Ex. 4 at 32. Initially, Petitioner exhibited
significant lower-extremity weakness, decreased balance, slow gait speed, decreased
sensation in his legs, and neuropathic pain. Id. at 24. Petitioner was instructed to complete
sixty to ninety minutes of physical therapy and occupational therapy daily, five days a
week. Id. at 31.
As of his discharge on October 30, 2019, Petitioner had improved but exhibited
mobility deficits including the need to use a wheelchair, requiring assistance for walking
10 feet on uneven surfaces, and using a front wheeled walker. Ex. 4 at 36-37. He also
continued to report neurological issues including numbness in the tips of his fingers,
reduced strength in his lower body, and reduced reflexes in his patella. Id. at 37.
On November 5, 2019, Petitioner obtained an initial evaluation from physical
therapist Angela Liautaud. Ex. 5 at 52. He exhibited gait difficulty, weakness, impaired
mobility, imbalance, and reduced sensation to light touch below the knees. Id. An
examination noted Petitioner’s lower extremities were “quite numb” and exhibited reduced
muscle tone in his legs. Id. at 54.
Petitioner was seen by Dr. Derek Hubbard on November 11, 2019 for a follow-up.
Ex. 2 at 40. Dr. Hubbard noted that Petitioner had gained 50%-75% of his strength back,
although he was still using a walker. Ex. 2 at 40. Petitioner also stopped taking
medications for spasms and paresthesias including gabapentin and baclofen. Id.
Petitioner attended seven physical therapy visits between November 25, 2019 and
December 30, 2019. Ex. 5 at 17-41. Petitioner improved during this time. On November
25, 2019, he reportedly started walking with his dog for short distances. Ex. 5 at 40. By
December 30, 2019 Petitioner was able to jog “30 yard intervals” and had “nearly
achieved the age appropriate average distance for the 6 minute walk test Id. at 17, 19.
He also reported no sense of weakness in his legs, and improved balance. Id. at 17.
Petitioner saw Dr. Douglas Dulli on December 18, 2019. Ex. 8 at 217. At that time,
Dr. Dulli noted Petitioner had made “tremendous improvement in his weakness &
3

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 4 of 9
numbness.” Id. at 219. Further, Petitioner “feels that his strength is almost 100% back at
baseline”, although he still had some mild hip weakness. Id. Petitioner also reported some
continued numbness in his feet, some gait imbalances, and poor proprioception in his
extremities. Id. at 219. Dr. Dulli indicated that Petitioner was “nearly at baseline” at that
time. Id. at 223.
Petitioner had a telemedicine visit several months later, on May 6, 2020. Ex. 6 at
1. At that time, Petitioner reported some residual numbness on the top of his right foot,
occasional imbalance, and difficulty running down stairs. No additional follow-up was
necessary at that time. Id. at 1.
On May 20, 2020 Petitioner discussed his condition with Dr. Aaron Struck. Ex. 8
at 99-100. Petitioner reported continued episodes of gait imbalance, although they were
rare, and some numbness in his right foot. Id. He also reported his strength had
completely returned. Id. Dr. Struck noted that Petitioner was “nearly at baseline other than
minimal numbness in the R plantar foot, rare gait imbalance without falls, & urinary
urgency.” Id. at 103.
Almost a year later, Petitioner returned to Dr. Hubbard on March 2, 2021 for a
routine physical exam. Ex. 8 at 51-52. At that time, he reported minor bladder irritation,
lingering right foot numbness, and occasional low back pain. Id. at 51. Petitioner again
saw Dr. Hubbard the next year for a physical. Ex. 10 at 10. He continued to complain of
lingering symptoms that had “not changed much”. Id.
III. Affidavit Evidence
Mr. Weil submitted two declarations in support of his petition. Exs. 7, 11. In his first,
Petitioner described the onset and treatment of his acute GBS, as well as his recovery.
Petitioner described the initial diagnoses and treatment, including the pain he
experienced and fear when his condition initially deteriorated. Ex. 7 at 1-3. In a
supplemental statement, Petitioner notes that he has not regained all of his physical
faculties, but continues to suffer from foot numbness and imbalance, and less bladder
control. Ex. 11 at 2.
IV. Damages
The sole contested damages component to be decided is pain and suffering.
Petitioner requests an award of $180,000.00. Petitioner’s Brief on Damages (“Pet. Br.”)
at 1. Respondent argues that an award of $107,500.00 for pain and suffering is
reasonable in this case. Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Res. Br.”) at 1. The parties
4

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 5 of 9
have agreed to $1,331.67 for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. Pet. Br. at 1 n.1,
Res. Br. at 9.
V. 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 awarding such
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 . . . 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 (citing 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 that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.3 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
3 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 were assigned to former Chief Special
Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were
reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 6 of 9
contemplated that the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field
of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum (between zero and the $250,000.00 cap), that practice was cast into doubt by
the Court several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579
(Fed. Cl. 2013). The Court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering
awards into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is
compared to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 589-90. Instead,
pain and suffering should be assessed by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and
suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside
of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap
merely cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all
possible awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. While Graves does not
control the process used herein to calculate pain and suffering, it stands as wise counsel.
VI. Appropriate Compensation for 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 the
awareness of his injury. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and
duration of Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the
medical records and affidavits filed and all assertions made by the parties in written
documents. Petitioner’s medical records, affidavit, and supplemental affidavit provide
descriptions of the pain and suffering he experienced during his illness. Petitioner cites to
a number of damages decisions involving GBS injuries.4 Pet. Br. at 13-15. Petitioner also
noted that awards in proffered GBS cases typically range from approximately
$128,072.42 and the cap, and that here Petitioner’s case “should be worth considerably
more than the ‘median’ amount cited” in the proffered cases. Id. at 15, citing Turner v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1051V, 2021 WL 3834198 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 27, 2021).
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s course was less severe than previous cases
4 In particular, Petitioner cited to 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 pain and suffering); Bircheat v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1088V, 2021 WL 3026880, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16,
2021) (awarding $170,000.00 for pain and suffering); and Presley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
17-1888V, 2020 WL 1898856 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 23, 2020) (awarding $180,000 for pain and
suffering).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 7 of 9
where damages had to be decided. Petitioner underwent one round of IVIG, and
recovered relatively quickly. Res. Br. at 6-8. Further, the only GBS-related sequelae
Petitioner continues to experience was lingering numbness in his right foot and some
balance issues. Id. at 7-8.
After reviewing the record in this case and considering the parties’ written
arguments I find that the record best supports the conclusion that Petitioner's condition
was initially severe, but that he quickly improved to a more moderate level on the
spectrum of GBS cases.
The majority of Petitioner’s treatment occurred in October 2019 – very close-in-
time to his vaccination. On October 6, 2019, Petitioner reported weakness in his lower
limbs that started approximately nine days after his vaccination, resulting in multiple falls.
Ex. 5 at 57-59, Ex. 3 at 33. Petitioner was admitted to the hospital for five days where he
underwent one round of IVIG treatment, an MRI, and a lumbar puncture. Ex. 3 at 61-67.
Thereafter, Petitioner spent twenty days in a rehabilitation hospital. Ex. 4 at 32. During
that time, his strength, balance, and mobility improved significantly. However, upon
discharge on October 30, 2019, he still required a front-wheeled walker and wheelchair
for mobility and experienced numbness in his extremities. Id. at 36-37.
Petitioner attended additional physical therapy sessions between November 25,
2019 and December 30, 2019, and continued to improve. Petitioner stopped taking
medications for spasms and paresthesias by November 11, 2019. Ex. 2 at 40. By
December 18, 2019, he reportedly felt that he was nearly back to baseline. Ex. 8 at 219.
Petitioner continued to report lingering mild numbness in his right foot and some
imbalance, but as of May 20, 2020 his strength had completely returned. Id. at 99-100.
I find the damages determinations from other cases where pain and suffering
awards ranged from $170,000.00 to $180,000.00 to involve more severe GBS, and where
the injured parties experienced far worse prognoses subsequent to their initial
hospitalizations and could no longer work (or were out of work for several months),
attended far more physical therapy visits, and continued to require medication for pain
specifically related to the GBS. See, e.g., Johnson 2018 WL 5024012, at *7-8; Dillenbeck
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *14 (Fed. Cl. July
29, 2019), aff'd in part and remanded, 147 Fed. Cl. 131 (2020); Fedewa v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL 1915138, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 26, 2020).
Here, by contrast, Petitioner's recovery was much quicker, and the record does
not indicate that he has experienced continued treatments or deficiencies specifically
related to his GBS aside from some lingering mild numbness, rare instances of
imbalance, and some urinary urgency. Ex. 8 at 99-100. In fact, Petitioner reported by May
7

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 8 of 9
20, 2020 (a little more than seven months post-onset) that he was “nearly at baseline….”
Ex. 8 at 103. For these reasons, I cannot find that his GBS injury and its sequelae were
of such high severity to justify an award of the magnitude he has requested.
Nevertheless, GBS is a serious and frightening vaccine injury, and Petitioner's pain
and suffering award should be calculated with that in mind. Prior to vaccination, Mr. Weil
was active and relatively healthy, which likely contributed his eventual recovery, but also
underscores the impact his illness had on his life. He endured several weeks of care in
hospital and rehabilitation facilities, and several months of physical and occupational
therapy thereafter. During the months following his GBS diagnosis, Petitioner also
suffered a loss of enjoyment of activities in which he once participated. Although he could
ambulate independently, he required the use of a walker for a period of time. For these
reasons, I find that Respondent's recommendation of $107,500.00 is too modest.
Petitioner’s situation is most similar to the petitioner in Castellanos v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1710V, 2022 WL 1482497, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 30, 2022)
(awarding $125,000.00 for pain and suffering). That petitioner’s GBS was found to be on
the moderate end of severity in GBS cases - but he underwent an intense initial treatment
period including a nine-day hospitalization stay and 30 days at an inpatient rehabilitation
facility. Id. at *9. The Castellanos petitioner recovered relatively quickly thereafter, but still
required use of a walker more than three months later. Id. Moreover, within about five
months of GBS onset, he reported that he was feeling “very well.” Id. at 10. Similarly, Mr.
Weil required an intense initial period of treatment, but thereafter experienced significant
improvement. Mr. Weil did describe significant pain during his hospital stay, unlike the
petitioner in Castellanos. Further, Mr. Weil did not exhibit comorbidities that may have
reduced the value of the award in Castellanos. Id.
Balancing the severity of a GBS injury and Petitioner's personal loss against the
relatively low severity of his moderate disease course and treatment requirements, and
considering the arguments presented by both parties, a review of the cited cases, and
based on the record as a whole, I find that $140,000.00 in compensation for actual/past
pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case. His experiences exceed in
severity those of the Castellanos petitioner, but (as noted) do not rise to the levels
experienced by the other petitioners offered from Mr. Weil’s comparable cases.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $141,331.67 (representing an
award of $140,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and unreimbursed expenses of
$1,331.67) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00831-UNJ Document 33 Filed 02/06/23 Page 9 of 9
This amount represents compensation for all items of 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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
9