VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01049
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01049
Petitioner: Aurea Maria Ortiz Viera
Filed: 2022-06-23
Decided: 2022-07-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and/or Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Aurea Maria Ortiz Viera filed a petition on March 11, 2021, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Ms. Ortiz Viera alleged that she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and/or Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on September 12, 2018, and/or October 3, 2019. She claimed to have experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that Ms. Ortiz Viera sustained a GBS Table injury and denied that the flu vaccine caused her GBS, CIDP, or any other condition. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case. They submitted a stipulation, which Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed and found reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Ms. Ortiz Viera a lump sum of $70,000.00 as compensation for all damages. Judgment was to be entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Petitioner was represented by Roberto E. Ruiz-Comas, and Respondent was represented by Tyler King.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Aurea Maria Ortiz Viera alleged GBS and/or CIDP following influenza vaccinations on September 12, 2018, and/or October 3, 2019. The respondent denied a GBS Table injury and causation. The parties stipulated to settle the case. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $70,000.00 for all damages. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, the mechanism, or any expert testimony. The case was decided by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on July 20, 2022, based on a stipulation. Petitioner's counsel was Roberto E. Ruiz-Comas, and Respondent's counsel was Tyler King.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01049-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-20
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/23/2022) regarding 25 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (saj) Service on parties made. (Main Document 29 replaced on 7/26/2022 to add the stipulation.) (fm).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1049V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
AUREA MARIA ORTIZ VIERA, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: June 23, 2022
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Roberto E. Ruiz-Comas, RC Legal & Litigation Services PSC, San Juan, PR, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 11, 2021, Aurea Maria Ortiz Viera filed a petition seeking compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that
she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) and/or Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating
Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a result of her September 12, 2018, and/or October 3, 2019, receipt
of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine, and that she experienced residual effects of this injury for more
than six months.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). As
provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain
kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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 includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will
be available to the public. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a GBS Table injury. Respondent also denies
that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer GBS, CIDP, or any other injury or condition.
Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation
(filed on June 23, 2022) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be
entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
(as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the
terms set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
• A lump sum of $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 6. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 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.

Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01049-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/20/22 Page 7 of 7