VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00844
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00844
Petitioner: Paul Longo
Filed: 2021-02-02
Decided: 2024-01-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-12
Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 163910

AI-assisted case summary:
Paul Longo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 12, 2019. The petition was filed on February 2, 2021. Respondent conceded that Petitioner was entitled to compensation, finding that he satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. Entitlement was granted on February 9, 2022. The parties later reached an impasse on the appropriate award for pain and suffering. The damages decision, issued on January 22, 2024, awarded Mr. Longo $160,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,910.58 for unreimbursed expenses, for a total award of $163,910.58. Mr. Longo experienced symptoms approximately fourteen days after vaccination, including tingling and numbness in his extremities, which led to a diagnosis of GBS. His treatment included hospitalization, IVIG, and physical therapy. The court found that Mr. Longo experienced a mild-to-moderate case of GBS with a good recovery and mild sequelae.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00844-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-03-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/09/2022) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00844-UNJ Document 23 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-844V
UNPUBLISHED
PAUL LONGO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 9, 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.
Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 2, 2021, Paul Longo 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”) as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 12, 2019. Petition at 1.
Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that
he has suffered from the sequela of his injury for more than six months, and that there
has been no previous award or compensation for his vaccine0related injury. Petition at 1-
2. 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-00844-UNJ Document 23 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 2
On February 7, 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 conceded that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. 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-00844-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-01-22
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/20/2023) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00844-UNJ Document 46 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-844V
UNPUBLISHED
PAUL LONGO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 20, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Damages;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-
Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Sarah Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 2, 2021, Paul Longo 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 alleged that he suffered from Guillain Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 12, 2019. Petition at
1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters
(the “SPU”), and entitlement was found in the Petitioner’s favor on February 9, 2022. The
parties reached on impasse on the appropriate award for pain and suffering, and the
matter was submitted for an SPU “Motions Day” hearing.
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-00844-UNJ Document 46 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons described below, I award $160,000.00 in damages, representing
compensation for actual pain and suffering, plus $3,910.58 representing unreimbursed
expenses.
I. Medical Records
Mr. Longo received a flu vaccine on September 12, 2019. Ex. 1 at 1. 8.
Approximately fourteen days later, he visited his primary care physician, complaining of
tingling and numbness in his extremities, which he had been experiencing for the past
week. Ex. 2 at 5.
Petitioner’s symptoms worsened, and he went to the emergency department on
October 1, 2019. Ex. 4 at 233. An MRI on October 2, 2019, was unremarkable (Ex. 4 at
381), however a lumbar puncture performed that same day was indicative of GBS. Ex. 4
at 276. Petitioner underwent a five-day course of IVIG, and was discharged thereafter. Id.
at 565-66. His pain was described as mild-to-moderate during this period (two-to-five out
of ten). Id. at 612-14. Post-hospitalization, Petitioner required a rolling walker and
described sharp, occasional pain in his feet. Ex. 3 at 67. His pain improved, and by
October 31, 2019, he described it as two out of ten or denied any pain. Id. at 85.
Petitioner attended thirty-six physical therapy sessions between October 9, 2019,
and February 17, 2020. Ex. 3 at 15-143, Ex. 5 at 6-107. At the time of his discharge, he
reported some neuropathic pain in his lower extremities. Id. at 8. However, he also
reported mild pain (zero-to-two out of ten) and was discharged from PT having met all his
goals of care. Ex. 5 at 175, 6. At a follow-up on March 20, 2020, Petitioner reported
bilateral foot numbness, mild weakness, but that he was “doing much better”. Ex. 2 at
137.
By December 11, 2020, Petitioner continued to report some leg cramping and
paresthesia, and continued discomfort. Ex. 7 at 3. He continued to report mild symptoms,
such as tingling and numbness in his hands and feet, a year later on November 18, 2021.
Ex. 15 at 33. However, by March 20, 2022, a repeat MRI showed no changes, and he
was walking unassisted with a normal gait. Ex. 16 at 3.
II. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner submitted three affidavits in support of his petition describing his course
of treatment and how his GBS impacted his life. Ex. 9, 10, 18.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00844-UNJ Document 46 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 6
III. Damages
Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of his damages demand on July 8, 2022,
seeking $180,000.00 for pain and suffering and $5,523.92 for unreimbursed expenses.
Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Pet. Br.”), ECF No. 28. Respondent reacted
with his own brief on October 7, 2022, arguing that $90,000.00 was a more appropriate
amount for pain and suffering, and allowing only $1,671.32 for unreimbursed expenses.
Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record with Regard to
Damages (“Res. Br.”), ECF No. 33. Petitioner filed a reply on October 24, 2022.
Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the
Record with Regard to Damages (“Reply”), ECF No. 36. The parties stated in an email
on December 15, 2023 that they agreed to an award of $3,910.58 for Petitioner’s out-of-
pocket expenses, and therefore that damages component is no longer in contention.
IV. 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)).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00844-UNJ Document 46 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 6
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
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.
V. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Mr. Longo 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, including the
medical records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties in written
documents, and the arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing. Petitioner
cites to a number of damages decisions involving GBS injuries that resulted in
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.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00844-UNJ Document 46 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 6
$180,000.00 awards.4 Pet. Br. at 13-14. Petitioner notes that Mr. Longo’s treatment
included a six-day course of hospitalization, a lumbar puncture, an MRI, and EKG, a CT
scan, IVIG, and thirty-six physical and occupation therapy sessions. Pet. Br. at 9-12.
Respondent argues that the severity of Mr. Longo’s GBS was less than what is
evident in other comparable cases. Res. Br. at 16-19. Respondent notes that Petitioner’s
pain levels were relatively mild, he never attended any in-patient rehabilitation, and had
a relatively short period of therapy. Id.
After reviewing the record in this case, the evidence best supports the conclusion
that Mr. Longo experienced a mild-to-moderate case of GBS. He was fortunate to receive
a relatively prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment with IVIG. He was in the hospital
for six days, and later did not require in-patient therapy. Petitioner underwent thirty-six
physical therapy sessions over approximately four months, and also reported continued
mild symptoms for at least two years.
Respondent’s proposed award of $90,000.00 does not give sufficient credence to
the seriousness of GBS as a general matter, or to the facts of this specific case. Petitioner
has better substantiated his demand than Respondent. And the number he seeks
reasonably balances the seriousness of GBS. However, I do agree with Respondent's
argument that the present facts are not directly comparable to the damages
determinations in the cases cited by Petitioner. In cases where $180,000.00 has been
awarded for pain and suffering, the injured party experienced a specific, identifiable effect
on their career, life, or daily living, which is harder to show here due to Mr. Longo’s short
course of treatment and lack of any long-term lasting effects. See, e.g. Dillenbeck 2019
WL 4072069, at *14; Devlin, 2020 WL 5512505 at *3; Francesco, 2020 WL 6705564 at
*4; W.B., 2020 WL 5509686 at *5.
Instead, Mr. Longo’s situation is most similar to the petitioner in Robinson v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0088V, 2020 WL 5820967 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
27, 2020) (awarding $150,000.00 for pain and suffering). That individual also had a short
hospital stay of six days, no in-patient therapy, and a relatively low number of physical
therapy sessions. Further, the Robinson petitioner showed good recovery, with only mild
sequelae three years after initial treatment. Mr. Longo underwent more physical therapy,
4 In particular, Petitioner cited to McCray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0277V, 2021 WL
4618549 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug 31, 2021); Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 17-1808V (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 26, 2020); and 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). Pet. Br. at 13-
14.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00844-UNJ Document 46 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 6
but he showed a good recovery, with complaints of only mild pain levels within
approximately two months of the initial injury.
Balancing the severity of a GBS injury generally against the moderate disease
course and treatment requirements evidenced on this record, and considering the
arguments presented by both parties, a review of the cited cases, I find that $160,000.00
in compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case.
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 $163,910.58 (representing an
award of $160,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and unreimbursed expenses of
$3,910.58) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
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.
6