VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01132
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01132
Petitioner: Donald Holmberg
Filed: 2021-03-29
Decided: 2024-10-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-01-28
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 170915

AI-assisted case summary:
Donald Holmberg filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 29, 2021, alleging that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving an influenza vaccine on January 28, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On June 23, 2023, the Special Master determined that Mr. Holmberg experienced the onset of GBS no more than 42 days after receiving the flu vaccine. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on September 7, 2023, acknowledging the onset determination and stating that the respondent would not defend the case on other grounds, agreeing that Mr. Holmberg had otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for GBS following flu vaccination. Consequently, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Mr. Holmberg entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on October 7, 2024, a Decision Awarding Damages was issued. The Special Master considered the legal standard for compensation, including awards for pain and suffering and unreimbursable expenses. Mr. Holmberg, a 70-year-old military veteran with pre-existing conditions including chronic hip pain, anxiety, and PTSD, received the flu vaccine on January 28, 2020. He developed GBS symptoms, including numbness and balance issues, leading to hospitalization on March 13, 2020. He was diagnosed with GBS after a lumbar puncture confirmed elevated protein in his cerebrospinal fluid. He underwent physical and occupational therapy and was discharged from inpatient rehabilitation on April 16, 2020. The Special Master noted that Mr. Holmberg avoided the most severe manifestations of GBS, such as respiratory failure, but experienced enhanced suffering due to his PTSD and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited in-person visits from loved ones. Following discharge, he had persistent numbness, tingling, gait abnormalities, and fatigue, documented up to 13 months post-vaccination. The Special Master reviewed medical records, affidavits, and arguments from both parties, considering prior GBS cases and the specific circumstances of Mr. Holmberg's recovery. The Special Master found that Mr. Holmberg's GBS symptoms persisted for over 13 months. The decision awarded Mr. Holmberg a lump sum of $170,915.57, comprising $170,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $915.57 for past unreimbursable expenses. The Special Master noted that Mr. Holmberg had stopped working part-time and hunting due to his condition. The award was made payable to Mr. Holmberg. Petitioner's counsel was Alison H. Haskins of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, and later Alison Haskins of Siri & Glimstad, LLP. Respondent's counsel was Jennifer A. Shah, and later Benjamin Patrick Warder, both of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decisions were issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Donald Holmberg, age 70, received an influenza vaccine on January 28, 2020. He filed a petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a vaccine injury. The Special Master determined that GBS onset occurred within 42 days of vaccination, satisfying the Vaccine Injury Table presumption for flu vaccines. The respondent conceded entitlement based on the Table presumption. The Special Master awarded $170,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $915.57 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $170,915.57. The decision noted that Mr. Holmberg experienced GBS symptoms, including numbness, tingling, gait abnormalities, and fatigue, persisting for over 13 months post-vaccination. His pre-existing PTSD and the COVID-19 pandemic were noted as factors that enhanced his suffering during hospitalization. The public decision does not name specific medical experts or detail the precise mechanism of vaccine-induced GBS beyond the Table presumption. Petitioner's counsel was Alison H. Haskins (Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA; Siri & Glimstad, LLP). Respondent's counsel was Jennifer A. Shah and Benjamin Patrick Warder (U.S. Department of Justice). The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on October 29, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01132-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-25
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/23/2023) regarding 38 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1132V
DONALD HOLMBERG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 23, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Jennifer A. Shah, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING ONSET1
On March 29, 2021, Donald Holmberg 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 following his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on January 28, 2020, he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at ¶¶ 1,
24-25. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of
Special Masters.
1 Because this ruling 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 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-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 9
Petitioner filed the medical records and the signed declaration3 required under the
Vaccine Act at the outset of the case, and periodic updates thereafter. Exs. 1-14 filed
March 30, 2021 (ECF Nos. 6-7); see also Exs. 16-20 (ECF Nos. 11, 13); Exs. 21-22 (ECF
No. 17); Exs. 23-26 (ECF No. 21).
On January 13, 2022, Respondent initiated settlement discussions by “invit[ing]
Petitioner to submit a reasonable demand.” Status Report (ECF No. 22). After the parties
reached an impasse, however, Petitioner asked for my preliminary opinion as to whether
his onset of symptoms was consistent with a Table flu/GBS injury. See Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 26). After the status conference, the parties were informed that: “Based on my
review of the record to date and the [then] current lack of any specific objections from
Respondent, I ha[d] not identified onset to be a significant issue.” Id. at 1. The parties
made a further attempt at informal resolution, which was unsuccessful. Afterwards,
Petitioner and three other individuals provided their recollections about the underlying
facts. Exs. 27-30 filed August 24, 2022 (ECF No. 28).4 The parties then briefed
entitlement. Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed August
24, 2022 (ECF No. 29) (“Brief”); Respondent’s Combined Report Pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 4(c) and Response filed October 7, 2022 (ECF No. 32) (“Response”); Petitioner’s
Reply dated October 28, 2022 (ECF No. 34) (“Reply”).
The parties’ briefing raises a single dispute: whether Petitioner’s onset occurred
within, or just outside of, the outer limit for a Table GBS injury. For the following reasons,
I find that (under the “more likely than not” preponderant standard) onset occurred no
more than 42 days after receipt of the flu vaccine.
I. Applicable Legal Standards
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
3 Rather than an affidavit, the statement provided by Petitioner is a declaration signed under penalty of
perjury as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746.
4 These declarations were also signed under penalty of perjury. See note 3. Petitioner and his wife’s
declarations at Ex. 27-28 were most likely prepared like those of his other witnesses in summer 2022, but
they are not dated. In late October 2022, Petitioner and his wife dated and refiled the identical declarations.
Ex. 39-40. This opinion will cite to the original filings.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 9
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 4 of 9
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
The Vaccine Injury Table creates a presumption of causation for GBS meeting
certain criteria, including onset “3 – 42 days (not less than 3 days and not more than 42
days)” after receipt of a seasonal influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(D)
(emphasis added). Also relevant to onset, the Table explains that GBS is generally
marked by “bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes
in weak limbs.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(ii)(A).5
Table flu/GBS claims have often been dismissed for failure to establish proper
onset. See, e.g., Randolph v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1231V, 2020 WL
542735, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 2, 2020) (finding GBS onset at the earliest
occurred 76 days post-vaccine, thus necessitating dismissal of the Table claim);
Benenhaley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0545V, 2022 WL 17974426 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 28, 2022) (onset 108 – 109 days post-vaccine).
In adjudicating off-Table (actual causation) flu-GBS claims, special masters have
recognized that a later onset may be medically acceptable. Barone v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 11-707V, 2014 WL 6834557, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 12, 2014)
(accepting onset up to 56 days post-vaccine, for actual causation); see also Spayde v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 2021 WL 686682, at *18-19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
27, 2021) (finding actual causation based on onset 49 days post-vaccine). However, such
claims obviously do not receive the Table presumption of causation – or the initial benefit
of the “lookback provision”. Randolph, 2020 WL 542735, at *8-9 (holding that a flu-GBS
claim with onset outside of the Table timeframe, filed outside of the typical three-year
limitations period, was untimely and must be dismissed).
5 Pertaining to the three most common variants of the injury, which together comprise the vast majority of
GBS cases recognized in North America and Europe. In the present case, Petitioner has not alleged – nor
do I perceive from my own review of the evidence – development of a fourth, less common variant which
does not require limb weakness. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(iii).
4

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 5 of 9
II. Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. This ruling, however, is limited to
resolving only a single fact issue: the most likely onset for Petitioner’s GBS. Accordingly,
I will only summarize or discuss evidence that directly pertains to this issue, as informed
by both parties’ respective citations to the record and their arguments. Specifically:
• Medical Records. On January 28, 2020, Petitioner received the subject flu
vaccine at a Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center (“VAMC”) in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Ex. 1 at 1-2.
• Forty-five (45) days later, on Friday, March 13, 2020,6 Petitioner presented to the
Warren General Hospital (“WGH”) emergency room. WGH hospitalist Ralph
Meloro, M.D., recorded: “[Petitioner] states his right hip has been hurting on and
off for years, however, it has worsened in the past few days to the point where he
can’t walk. He denies trauma to the area. He describes the pain as ‘sharp and
achy’ and non-radiating, but states he has numbness in [sic, and?] tingling in the
legs and feet b/l. He feels ‘weak and wobbly’ and is unable to raise his right leg off
of the bed. Rest improves the pain. He fell two days ago and again this morning
because his legs felt heavy and he lost his balance.” Ex. 2 at 92; see also id. at
64, 78 (triage assessments).
• Petitioner’s symptoms of numbness and tingling in his lower and upper extremities
worsened further – prompting the WGH medical providers to consult an outside
neurologist, Harshit Shah, M.D., at Saint Vincent Hospital. It was agreed that
Petitioner should be transferred to the latter hospital, where he would receive a
“higher level of care.” See Ex. 2 at 54 (WGH discharge summary).
• On Tuesday, March 17, 2020, a St. Vincent hospitalist, Rachel Wilkerson D.O.,
conducted the admitting history and physical. Ex. 16 at 479. She recorded:
“[Petitioner] reports that 67 [sic?] days ago he was in his normal state of health.
He states he was walking 3-4 miles every single morning. He states that about six
days ago, he noticed that his feet did not feel normal. He states he was still able
to walk without any difficulty, however over the course of the day it became more
and more difficult. He states that he fell carrying his wife’s bags. He states that he
felt like his legs were throwing his balance off. He did not injure himself in that fall.
He reports that four days ago in the morning, he did not go on his walk, he states
that he was walking in his house and fell on the carpet. He states that he was able
to use a walker that they had around the house without any issue. He presented
6 Because 2020 was a leap year, February had 29 days.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 6 of 9
to the emergency department, where he was put in a wheelchair and admitted.
The following morning Saturday, he could still use the walker in the morning, but
by the end of the day his arms had become too weak to support himself his hands
on the walker.” Id. at 480.
• Dr. Wilkerson also recorded Petitioner’s report of “a flu shot and pneumonia shot
at the end of January/ early February, and he received shingles vaccine two weeks
after that. He did not have any immediate side effects from either of these
vaccines.” Ex. 16 at 480.7
• Dr. Wilkerson assessed: “Unclear etiology but with relatively acute onset and
progression over 3-4 days… Will consult neurology for assistance and
recommendations.” Ex. 16 at 494.
• Also on Tuesday, March 17, 2020, the St. Vincent neurologist Dr. Shah – who had
initiated Petitioner’s transfer from WGH to facilitate a higher standard of care – met
with him directly for the first time. Ex. 16 at 499. Dr. Shah recorded: “According to
the patient, he was in normal state of health until last Tuesday. Last Tuesday,
patient noticed onset of numbness in his toes in bilateral feet. Patient did not make
much out of the symptoms at that time… the numbness slowly progressed to
involve both feet… he started having difficulty in coordinating his movements
because of the numbness in both lower extremities… he was having difficulty
ambulation and balance because of the numbness. Patient did have a fall on
Thursday when he lost his stepping because of the numbness. At that time, patient
did not hit his head or lose consciousness… the numbness continued to progress
and reached bilateral knees by Friday, he was also having weakness in both his
legs. Around the same time, patient also noticed that numbness had begun in
bilateral upper extremities starting in his fingers… he [fell] again on the 13th in his
house for which he went to Warren General Hospital to get himself tested for gait
difficulty and right hip pain.” Id.8
• On March 24, 2020, Petitioner was transferred from St. Vincent’s Hospital to an
inpatient rehabilitation hospital, where he remained for approximately one month.
Afterwards, he received outpatient treatment for his GBS, including neurology
7 Petitioner received a shingles vaccine at the VAMC on February 7, 2020. Ex. 1 at 1. However, that vaccine
is not covered under the Program. Neither the parties nor my own review identified receipt of a pneumonia
vaccine in early 2020.
8 Within this quote, an ellipsis (“…”) is used only when Dr. Shah repeated the phrase “According to the
patient.”
6

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 7 of 9
follow-ups and physical therapy. However, neither the parties’ briefing nor my own
review has identified any additional medical records, beyond what is cited above,
that shed light on the onset determination.
• Declarations. Over two years after the events in question, Petitioner recalled: “In
the few days before [his] birthday on March 5, 2020, [he] noticed a tingling and
numbness in [his] toes and feet. [His] legs felt heavy…” Ex. 27 at ¶ 4. The
symptoms “continued into [his] lowers legs and up to both knees over the next
week.” Id. He began “losing motor function in both of [his] hands” and “shortly after
that, [he] started to have trouble with [his] balance and walking.” Id. Petitioner “did
not want to see a doctor for these issues.” Id. “However, [his] balance and other
problems and [he] started to fall.” Id. “[He] had several near-falls and at least two
actual falls during the second week of March, right after [his] birthday.” Id.
• Petitioner recalled: “On the morning of March 13, 2020, [he] fell again in front of
[his] wife and landed on [his] left thigh on the carpet… [He] finally broke down and
decided to go to the emergency room…” Ex. 27 at ¶ 5.
• Petitioner also described his preexisting post-traumatic stress syndrome (“PTSD”)
“particularly as relates to doctors and medical treatment,” stemming from his
military service; his anxiety and terror surrounding his GBS symptoms and
hospitalization; and isolation because his wife was not permitted to stay with him
in the hospital due to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Ex. 27 at ¶¶ 3-10.
• Two family members offered similar recollections. First, his wife recalled noticing
sometime “before” his birthday, Petitioner began “moving more slowly and acting
unsteady on his feet.” Ex. 28 at ¶ 3. She recalled that on his birthday, Petitioner
“basically sat on the couch all night.” Id. at ¶ 4.
• Petitioner’s adult son (and the son’s three teenage children) lived approximately
fifteen (15) minutes away. Ex. 29 at ¶ 2. The family gathered “typically every
Sunday,“ and “also frequently to socialize, watch baseball, and other activities” in
addition to birthdays and other family celebrations. Id. The son similarly recalled
that Petitioner began to appear unsteady and off-balance “shortly before [his]
birthday” in 2020. Id. at ¶ 4.
• The final declaration from a neighbor/ tenant is less specific about the key timing
– describing a change in Petitioner’s condition “in early March 2020, around his
birthday.” Ex. 30 at ¶ 3.
7

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 8 of 9
III. Analysis
As noted above, Petitioner avers that he began experiencing tingling, numbness,
and heaviness in his lower extremities “a few days” before his March 5th birthday (37 days
post-vaccine); progressing to two falls and his hospital presentation the following week.
Brief at 7, 10. However, the medical records are quite detailed in describing that he was
in his “normal state of health” and that he disclaimed any difficulties with his lower
extremities (to wit, that he was “walking 3-4 miles every single morning”) until either
March 10th or 11th, 2020 (42 or 43 days post-vaccine), with the first fall occurring two
days later. See Ex. 16 at 479-80, 499. While recognizing that GBS is an alarming
condition and that Petitioner was apprehensive of medical providers, see Reply at 4, it is
not evident why such a specific account would be inaccurate and omit approximately a
week of earlier and escalating symptoms.
Petitioner also avers that the later declarations (Exs. 27-30) only serve to
supplement the medical records. Reply at 7. But to the contrary, the declarations propose
an onset of numbness, tingling, and heaviness in his lower extremities just before his
March 5th birthday – in direct conflict with the far more contemporaneous medical records,
which state that the same symptoms began on March 10th or 11th. The later declarations,
while consistent with one another, are not sufficiently clear and compelling to win the day.
The medical records themselves are somewhat inconsistent with one another with
regards to onset. While the earliest records are from WGH (see, e.g., Ex. 2 at 92),
Petitioner was transferred to St. Vincent to receive a higher level of care just four days
later. The St. Vincent records are also more detailed in describing the onset of the earliest
and more subtle neurological symptoms. Within the St. Vincent records, the hospitalist
Dr. Wilkerson recorded onset as “about six days ago,” which was March 11, 2020. Ex. 16
at 479. In contrast, the neurologist Dr. Shah recorded onset as “last Tuesday,” which was
March 10, 2020. Id. at 499. Dr. Shah recorded the symptoms as beginning with numbness
in his toes bilaterally, progressing to both feet, then numbness and balance issues, then
falls on March 12th9 and 13th, 2020. Id. This record is fairly contemporaneous to the events
in question; detailed; and created by the medical provider most qualified in the
assessment and treatment of the relevant medical condition. It is also pertinent that Dr.
Shah had previously corresponded with the WGH providers and arranged Petitioner’s
transfer to St. Vincent. Thus, Dr. Shah’s record warrants somewhat more weight.
9 I recognize that the WGH hospitalist Dr. Meloro recorded that Petitioner’s first fall was “two days ago”
which would have been on March 11, 2020. Response at 10 (citing Ex.2 at 92). While that record was
created earlier in time, the St. Vincent neurologist’s record is more specialized and detailed in assessing
his GBS – and the key date is not for the first fall, but for the onset of the more subtle neurological symptoms
that predate the fall.
8

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 40 Filed 07/25/23 Page 9 of 9
Given the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude on this record that “more likely
than not” Petitioner’s GBS onset occurred on March 10, 2020, or 42 days post-
vaccination. Trustworthy medical records support that onset, even though other records
suggest one occurring a day later.
Conclusion
Petitioner has established the onset of GBS not more than 42 days after receipt of
a seasonal flu vaccine.
Petitioner avers that he has presented preponderant evidence for all other criteria
for a Table flu/GBS injury. Brief at 10-13. Petitioner has also articulated his position
regarding appropriate compensation (specifically pain and suffering, and past
unreimbursable expenses) for said injury. Id. at 13-28.
Accordingly, within 30 days, by Monday, July 24, 2023, Respondent shall
propose further proceedings in either a status report or a revised Rule 4(c) report
which incorporates my findings of fact pertaining to onset. Respondent shall also
report whether he would like to file a response to Petitioner’s briefing on damages,
and if so, propose a deadline for the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01132-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/07/2023) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1132V
DONALD HOLMBERG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 7, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Jennifer A. Shah, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 29, 2021, Donald Holmberg 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 following his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on January 28, 2020, he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at ¶¶ 1,
24-25. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of
Special Masters.
On June 23, 2023, I concluded that (under the “more likely than not” preponderant
standard), onset occurred no more than 42 days after receipt of the flu vaccine. Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 38.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling 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 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-01132-UNJ Document 44 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 2
On September 7, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
recognizes my onset determination as the law of the case, and he advises that he will not
defend the cause on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of Special
Masters. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 7. Respondent submits that Petitioner has
otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications
and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for GBS following flu vaccination. Id. at 8 (citing 42
C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), (c)(15)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has
satisfied all legal requisites for 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01132-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-29
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/07/2024) regarding 51 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 13
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1132V
DONALD HOLMBERG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 7, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 29, 2021, Donald Holmberg 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 following his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on January 28, 2020, he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at ¶¶ 1,
24-25. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of
Special Masters. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to
$170,000.00 for past pain and suffering.
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-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 13
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the parties’ initial settlement discussions hit an impasse, I entered Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law in June 2023 that Petitioner had suffered the onset of
GBS within 42 days of receipt of the flu vaccine. ECF No. 38.3 On September 7, 2023,
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report confirming that he would not otherwise defend the
case, ECF No. 41, and a Ruling on Entitlement for the Table flu/GBS claim was issued,
ECF No. 42. The parties now request a determination of the appropriate award of
damages. Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed August
24, 2022 (ECF No. 29) (“Brief”);4 Respondent’s Damages Response filed Nov. 3, 2023
(ECF No. 45) (“Response”);5 Petitioner’s Damages Reply filed Nov. 15, 2023 (ECF No.
46) (“Reply”). The matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. 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 award 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). 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
3 Holmberg v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1132V, 2023 WL 4742398 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 23, 2023).
4 Petitioner filed his medical records filed as Exs. 1 – 26; sworn declarations from himself and other
witnesses, Exs. 29 – 30, 39 – 40; documentation of expenses, Exs. 31 – 32; and medical literature regarding
GBS, Exs. 33 – 38. He completed the last of these filings in October 2022. And as noted in the Findings of
Fact, all declarations are signed under penalty of perjury consistent with 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746.
5 Respondent initially opted to brief only the disputed onset issue and defer setting forth his respective
position on the potential award of damages. See Respondent’s Combined Report Pursuant to Vaccine Rule
4(c) and Response filed October 7, 2022 (ECF No. 32). After onset was resolved, Respondent duly briefed
damages as noted above.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 13
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 (quoting 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 my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.6 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated 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, as Respondent argues, 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 Graves 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 590. Instead, Graves
assessed pain and suffering 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 595. 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. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
6 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, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
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.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 4 of 13
III. Prior SPU Compensation of GBS Pain and Suffering7
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU Flu/ GBS Cases
Flu/ GBS cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU.
As of July 1, 2024, 840 SPU GBS cases have resolved since the inception of SPU ten
years before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases (799), with
the remaining 41 cases dismissed.
The data for all categories of damages decisions described above reflect the
expected differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated8
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 49 376 17 357
Lowest $96.008.66 $9,050.40 $20,000.00 $3,098.64
1st Quartile $158,520.99 $127,216.71 $155,000.00 $100,000.00
Median $170,903.68 $165,000.00 $252,000.00 $150,000.00
3rd Quartile $185,750.00 $250,000.00 $400,000.00 $225,000.00
Largest $244,390.18 $2,282,465.84 $985,000.00 $1,200,000.00
B. Adjudication Specifically of GBS Pain and Suffering
Only a small minority of cases involved a special master’s adjudication of damages
issues. The written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral
judicial officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable guidance in
deciding what similarly situated claimants should also receive.9
7 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, including the majority of SIRVA claims, 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.
8 One award was for an annuity only, the exact amount which was not determined at the time of judgment.
9 Of course, even though all independently-settled damages issues (whether by stipulation/settlement or
proffer) must still be approved by a special master, such determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number of such cases,
these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in
comparable cases.” Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
4

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 5 of 13
As of July 1, 2024, in nearly every occasion that SPU has had to resolve the
appropriate award for GBS pain and suffering, over $100,000.00 has been awarded. A
lower sum of $92,500.00 was awarded just once. The remaining forty-eight (48) awards
far exceeded $100,000.00. The first-quartile value is $155,00.00. The median is
$165,000.00. The third-quartile value is $178,000.00. The largest award was
$192,500.00.
These decisions are informed by information about GBS, including the description
contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”). Pursuant to the Table, vaccine causation
is presumed for GBS with an onset 3 – 42 days (not less than 3 days, and not more than
42 days) after receipt of a seasonal flu vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(D). The
Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) explain:
GBS is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that encompasses a
spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes… The interval between the
first appearance of symptoms and the nadir of weakness is between 12
hours and 28 days. This is followed in all subtypes by a clinical plateau with
stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without
significant relapse. Death may occur without a clinical plateau. Treatment-
related fluctuations in all subtypes of GBS can occur within 9 weeks of GBS
symptom onset, and recurrence of symptoms after this timeframe would not
be consistent with GBS.
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(I) (2017). The three most common subtypes are acute
inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“AIDP”); acute motor axonal neuropathy
(“AMAN”); and acute motor and sensory neuropathy (“AMSAN”). Id. The onset of each is
marked by “bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes
in weak limbs.” Id. at (c)(15)(II). The fourth subtype – Fisher syndrome or Miller-Fisher
syndrome – has a different onset of “bilateral ophthalmoparesis; bilateral reduced or
absent tendon reflexes; [and] ataxia.” Id. at (c)(15)(III).10
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed
upon by the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
10 See also National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table – Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 Fed. Reg. 45132, at 45144 – 45 (July 29, 2015) (proposing addition of Table
flu/GBS claims – explaining GBS is “an acute paralysis caused by dysfunction in the peripheral nervous
system [that…] may manifest with weakness, abnormal sensations, and/or abnormality in the autonomic
(involuntary) nervous system,” and that death, when it occurs, is most often related to respiratory failure).
5

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 6 of 13
A consistent starting consideration is that “GBS pain and suffering awards
generally should be higher than those awarded to petitioners who have suffered a less
frightening and physically alarming injury, such as SIRVA.”11 Gross v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 11,
2021); see also, e.g., Castellanos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1710V, 2022
WL 1482497, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2022) (emphasizing recognition of “the
seriousness of GBS as a general matter,” in awarding a six-figure sum); Voeller v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1526V, 2023 WL 5019830, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 6, 2023) (noting GBS’s “frightening” nature).
But of course, not every GBS case is equally severe. Further details of the initial
medical course are considered – including any mistake or delay in diagnosing GBS; any
in-patient hospitalization and/or in-patient rehabilitation (and the duration of any such
stays); diagnostic procedures (e.g., bloodwork, lumbar punctures, electrodiagnostic
studies, imaging); the severity of symptoms at their nadir (e.g., involving incontinence or
respiratory failure); the extent and effectiveness of treatment (e.g., IVIg, plasmapheresis,
pain medications); other interventions (e.g., feeding tubes, breathing tubes,
catheterization); and any complications (e.g., sepsis during hospitalization).
Also relevant is the long-term course – as evidenced by out-patient therapies,
neurology evaluations, and other medical appointments concerning GBS; the results of
repeat electrodiagnostic studies and other relevant tests; medical providers’ assessments
of the degree of recovery achieved; ongoing reliance on assistive devices and
medications; and relevant treatment gaps. Previous opinions have recognized that “a
substantial recovery does not mean that [an individual] has fully recovered from his GBS
and has no ongoing sequelae. It is common for petitioners to experience ongoing
symptoms of GBS, such as numbness and fatigue, even with a good recovery.” Elenteny
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1972V, 2023 WL 2447498, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 10, 2023). But symptoms of that nature are typically folded into a “typical” past
pain and suffering award, and will not justify a future component. See, e.g., id.; Miller v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1559V, 2023 WL 2474322, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 10, 2023).
“The mere fact that a claimant had pre-vaccination comorbidities does not per se
diminish the impact of [the vaccine injury] on his life – especially one as alarming and
potentially life-altering as GBS – and therefore is not alone reason for a lower award.”
Bircheat v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1088V, 2021 WL 3026880, at *4 (Fed.
11 Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) is another Table injury. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a),
(c)(10).
6

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 7 of 13
Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2021). However, a special master is statutorily required to
consider to what extent a petitioner’s pain and suffering is truly “from the vaccine-related
injury,” Section 15(a)(4) (emphasis added), and not from any unrelated preexisting or
subsequently-developed medical issues. See, e.g., Bircheat, 2021 WL 3026880, at *4;
Gross, 2021 WL 2666685, at *5.
Also worthy of consideration are the injury’s impact on a petitioner’s personal
circumstances including his or her family and other personal obligations, and professional
life (whether or not lost wages are directly claimed).
All of these facts are primarily gleaned from the medical records – although sworn
statements and/or other evidence may also be considered, especially if they supplement,
and do not contradict, the facts reflected in the medical records.
IV. Parties’ Arguments
In seeking $180,000.00 for his past pain and suffering, Petitioner argues that his
GBS onset, inpatient hospitalization, and rehabilitation stay were aggravated by his pre-
existing post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and the emerging Pandemic. Brief at 13
– 15. After initial outpatient evaluations, he deferred further medical care in light of the
risks posed by the Pandemic – but he “never did return to his baseline.” Id. at 16. He
argues that his ongoing numbness and tingling in his feet, and fatigue, have majorly
disrupted his life, and are likely permanent. Id. at 28.12 Petitioner therefore argues that his
pain and suffering is equivalent to that demonstrated by the petitioners in Johnson,
Fedewa, Dillenbeck, Presley, and Devlin. Id. at 18 – 23.13
12 In support of this proposition, Petitioner filed several pieces of medical literature:
• Davidson, I., et al., What Constitutes A ‘Good’ Recovery Outcome in Post-Acute Guillain-Barré
syndrome? Results of a Nationwide Survey of Post-Acute GBS Sufferers in the United Kingdom,
17 Eur. J. of Neurol. 677 (2009) [Ex. 33];
• Ex. 33 – Rudolph T., et al., The Long-Term Functional Status of Patients with Guillain-Barré
syndrome, 15 Eur. J. of Neurol. 1332 (2008) [Ex. 34];
• Bernsen R., et al., Long-Term Sensory Deficit After Guillain-Barré syndrome, 248 J. Neurol. 483
(2001) [Ex. 35];
• De Vries, J., et al., Fatigue in Neuromuscular Disorders: Focus on Guillain-Barré syndrome and
Pompe Disease, 67 Cell. And Mol. Life Sciences 701 (2010) [Ex. 36];
• Forsberg, A., et al., Residual Disability 10 Years After Falling Ill in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A
Prospective Follow-Up Study, 317 J. Neuro. Sci. 74 (2012) [Ex. 37];
• Drory, V., et al., Occurrence of Fatigue Over 20 Years After Recovery from Guillain-Barré
syndrome, 316 J. Neuro. Sci. 72 (2012) [Ex. 38].
13 Johnson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
20, 2018); Fedewa v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V, 202 WL1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
March 26, 2020); Dillenbeck v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl.
7

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 8 of 13
In contrast, Respondent proffers that a lower award of $110,000.00 is appropriate,
based on his view that Petitioner’s GBS was limited in severity, featuring a “fairly swift”
recovery to nearly his baseline of strength, and “no residual numbness and paresthesias.”
Response at 8. Respondent suggests that there is an eight-month gap of any GBS-related
treatment (after initial presentation and treatment), which supports a conclusion that
Petitioner’s GBS residuals were “mild and tolerable.” Id. Respondent also disputes that
GBS explains Petitioner’s reported ongoing fatigue; suggests that Petitioner may have
suffered a “different persistent neuropathy”; and contends that at best, his compensable
pain and suffering spans fifteen and one-half months. Id. at 8 – 9. Respondent suggests
that Petitioner’s pain and suffering is “somewhat” less severe than what was established
in Castellanos,14 and much less than in the cases cited by Petitioner. Response at 9 –
11. (Respondent does not address Petitioner’s arguments in the Brief at 24 – 28
(discussing the medical literature cited at n. 13, infra).
Petitioner argues that the “treatment gap” was not as lengthy as Respondent
contends and is adequately explained by his precautions during the Pandemic and his
PTSD. He disputes that he suffered any unrelated neuropathy, and he maintains that his
case is comparable to those cited in his opening Brief. See generally Reply.
V. 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.
In performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including the
medical records, affidavits, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents.
I considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU GBS cases
and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I ultimately base my
determination on the circumstances of this case.
Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019); Presley v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1888V, 20 WL 1898856 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 23, 2020); Devlin v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0191V, 2020 WL 5512505
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020). Each case resulted in a $180,000.00 past pain and suffering award.
14 Castellanos v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1710V, 2022 WL 1482497 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 30, 2022) (awarding $125,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
8

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 9 of 13
The evidence reflects that Mr. Holmberg – a 70-year-old, mostly retired, military
veteran with chronic right hip pain, anxiety, and PTSD,15 – received the subject flu vaccine
on January 28, 2020. His initial bout with GBS was somewhat typical for that condition,
based on my experience with these cases. Forty-two (42) days post-vaccination, on
March 10, 2020, he developed numbness in his toes bilaterally, progressing to both feet,
then balance issues,16 prompting his emergency attention and admission to a local
hospital on March 13, 2020. Ex. 2 at 64, 78, 92. He underwent imaging of his chest,
lumbar spine, pelvis, and left femur. Id. at 84 – 90. An EKG revealed atrial fibrillation, and
he received IV Cardizem and fluids. Id. at 90, 94 - 95. The first physical examinations
suggested normal strength and deep tendon reflexes – but he reported hip pain of up to
8/10 with activity, felt unable to walk, and utilized a walker and a Hoyer lift. Id. at 63, 154,
163 – 67. He also experienced deficits with his upper extremities including decreased fine
motor skills, causing difficulty using utensils and writing his name.
After his symptoms continued with no specific diagnosis, on March 17, 2020,
Petitioner was transferred to St. Vincent’s Hospital. There, he was documented to have
decreased deep tendon reflexes, weakness, and decreased sensation in all extremities.
Ex. 16 at 484, 505. On March 19, 2020, a lumbar puncture yielded cerebrospinal fluid
with elevated protein – confirming the diagnosis of GBS. Id. at 493, 507, 594. He also
received occupational therapy (“OT”) and physical therapy (“PT”). Following a five-day
course of IVIg, his strength improved, he could stand for a few seconds without support.
Id. at 650. Thus, on March 24, 2020, Petitioner was moved to St. Vincent’s inpatient
rehabilitation facility, where he “had no worsening of neurologic status, but continued to
make great gains from strength and sensation standpoint.” Ex. 16 at 1305. On April 16,
2020, he was discharged from inpatient rehab with instructions for outpatient follow-up
care, and to avoid driving until cleared by one of his physicians. Id.
The evidence reflects that during his initial course, Petitioner fortunately avoided
the most severe possible manifestations of GBS – such as respiratory failure,
incontinence, or severe neurological pain. Indeed, the only documented pain was in his
right hip – which was noted to be chronic, and described as bursitis and/or osteoarthritis.
See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 8, 92; Ex. 3 at 10; Ex. 12 at 7. But his pain and suffering was enhanced
by two unique facts. The first was his PTSD. He was repeatedly noted to be anxious, and
assessed with an adjustment disorder during his hospitalization – although he did not
receive any medications (beyond his preexisting prescription for Ativan) and he was
15 See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 105 (veterans’ affairs counseling session, reflecting a specific fear of medical
providers); Ex. 5 at 5 – 7 (primary care evaluation, in which Petitioner refused any physical examinations,
labs, and diagnostic studies); Ex. 2 at 157 (reflecting prescription for Ativan 0.5 mg, which he took “at least
daily”).
16 Holmberg, 2023 WL 4742398, at *5 – 6 (accepting the history in the neurology record found at Ex. 16 at
499).
9

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 10 of 13
assessed to be coping well, in counseling sessions. Ex. 16 at 1324 – 30. Second, his
March 2020 GBS onset coincided with the emergence of the global Pandemic – which
made his inpatient stay even more frightening, and isolating, due to the limit on in-person
visits from loved ones.
However once discharged, Petitioner fortunately achieved a significant recovery
from his GBS. He initially attended three skilled nursing evaluations, five PT sessions,
and one OT session (all taking place at his home). Upon discharge at the end of April
2020, he had improved but persistent numbness and tingling in his feet, decreased/
absent reflexes in his legs, impaired gait, and fatigue. He was using a walker less. He
had achieved all goals, and demonstrated adherence to a home exercise program, which
was focused on further improving his strength and balance. See generally Ex. 3.
By his June 10, 2020, outpatient neurology evaluation, Petitioner was not using a
walker or any other assistive device. Ex. 11 at 5. An exam documented normal muscle
tone and strength; slight weakness of the right leg; absent/ decreased lower extremity
reflexes; and gait abnormalities. Id. at 6 – 7. The neurologist assessed that Petitioner was
“almost back to his baseline strength level and is only having very mild levels of fatigue
and some right lower extremity weakness,” for which he should continue daily home
exercises. Id. at 7. I do recognize, however, that two weeks later, Petitioner’s wife reported
that he seemed weak, short-tempered, and “not as quick as he was,” Id. at 9.
The neurologist recommended a primary care consultation, which took place on
August 26, 2020, and over the telephone in light of the Pandemic. Ex. 10 at 11. Petitioner
reported: “[w]alk[ing daily before going to work. Neurologist says it can take months to get
over [GBS]. States that he still can tell the difference. States that he was also told immune
system was low – so stays away from people. Agrees to come in in 6 mo[nths] to get labs
and be seen.” Ex. 10 at 11. The primary care provider recorded: “Recommended not to
get vaccinations for a few months.” Id. at 17. Based on this his medical record
(supplemented by the later records and affidavits), I accept that Petitioner’s precautions
against contracting COVID help to explain the gap in medical documentation of his GBS
residual symptoms. But he has not identified any particular treatments that he might have
obtained but for the Pandemic. Thus, the treatment gap does not particularly favor either
party’s damages position.
Over five months after the primary care call, on February 8, 2021, Petitioner was
reevaluated by a neurologist. Ex. 11 at 11. The exam found absent/ decreased lower
extremity reflexes and gait abnormalities, plus an additional observation of “slightly
10

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 11 of 13
diminished vibratory sensation in toes.”17 Id. at 12. The neurologist assessed that
Petitioner had “recovered quite well” from GBS, but his reported inability to return to his
previous level of functioning may be a” residual effect” of that disease. Id. The neurologist
doubted that Petitioner’s reported daytime fatigue and drowsiness was due to GBS. Id.
However, this complaint seems consistent or possibly secondary to his other symptoms.
It is also frequently recognized in past OSM cases and in medical literature, such as the
articles filed by Petitioner here. Accordingly, I accept that Petitioner’s fatigue was at least
partially explained by his GBS – although isolation during the Pandemic, and natural
aging, may also have been contributory.
Upon the neurologist’s referral, between February 24 – April 23, 2021, Petitioner
attended 17 PT sessions. See generally Ex. 12, 18, 20 – 21. He was again assessed with
weakness, fatigue, and abnormal gait – putting him at risk for potential falls. Ex. 12 at 8.
But with PT, he improved his gross strength and mobility. Ex. 21 at 3. He denied having
any particular functional deficits or activities of daily living, and he was again discharged
with a home exercise program. Id.
The neurologist also sought electromyography (“EMG”) and nerve conduction
velocity (“NCV”) studies “to see if [Petitioner] had a good recovery of the peripheral
neuropathy [GBS] and does not have a mild peripheral neuropathy that may be
suggestive of a chronic problem such as CIDP.”18 Ex. 11 at 12. An EMG could not be
obtained because some other, unspecified physician “would not allow him to hold his
Eliquis” [an anticoagulant medication]. Ex. 17 at 11.
But on April 28, 2021, the neurologist conducted an NCV of Petitioner’s lower
extremities, which found evidence of a “moderate to severe axonal and demyelinating
sensory motor peripheral neuropathy.” Ex. 17 at 11. The neurologist found it “difficult” to
make a definitive diagnosis because Petitioner had not undergone electrodiagnostic
studies during his initial hospitalization for GBS. Id. Two weeks later, the neurologist’s
assessment was “idiopathic peripheral neuropathy, and he was still awaiting the results
of lab testing for any “treatable causes of peripheral neuropathy.” Ex. 26 at 6. There are
no further neurology records. I conclude that overall, there is not preponderant evidence
17 Decreased sensation in Petitioner’s feet may not have been recognized (or evaluated) at the June 2020
outpatient neurology appointment, but that finding is consistent with earlier records.
18 Chronic immune demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”), if ultimately diagnosed, is among the
exclusionary criteria that defeat a Table flu/GBS claim. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(vi).
11

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 12 of 13
that Petitioner developed CIDP or any unrelated peripheral neuropathy, but only GBS
with nerve damage and symptoms persisting over 13 months into the course.19
Overall, the evidence best supports the conclusion that despite Petitioner’s initial
GBS pain and suffering being moderately severe (particularly due to his PTSD and the
Pandemic), he had significantly recovered and was walking independently within two
months. He had residual effects of numbness/ tingling in his feet, abnormal gait, poor
balance, deconditioning, and fatigue that was documented up to 13 months post-
vaccination. It is more likely than not that those symptoms would have persisted for at
least another year, based on the NCV findings, Ex. 17 at 11, and the attestations of
Petitioner, his wife, his son, and a neighbor (completed in mid-late 2022). See generally
Ex. 29 - 30, 39 – 40.
Petitioner and the supporting witnesses describe that as a result of his GBS, he
has stopped working part-time at a golf course during the summer months. He has also
stopped hunting; goes on shorter walks; and is more dependent on his wife, children, and
grandchildren. See, e.g., Ex. 40 at ¶ 16; Ex. 39 at ¶ 10. These descriptions do not
contradict the medical records and are sufficiently persuasive to be accepted. I recognize
that the activities he has lost were meaningful, but they are nevertheless quantitatively
different than a full-time profession or caring for dependent family members.
Respondent’s citation to Castellanos (awarding $125,000.00) is easily
distinguishable because in that case, the medical providers deemed specific
comorbidities – including diabetic peripheral angiopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome – to
be more clinically significant in assessing his long-term condition. Castellanos, 2022 WL
1482497, at *10 – 11.
More apt is Petitioner’s citation to Devlin (awarding $180,000.00) – also involving
a largely healthy, retired older individual, with documented anxiety surrounding his GBS
onset and prognosis. Devlin, 2020 WL 5512505, at *3. The Devlin petitioner was
nonetheless properly diagnosed and treated for GBS during his initial hospitalization but
was documented to have residual symptoms such as “tingling in his feet and toes” for
about one year. Id. at *3 and n. 12. But I am also informed by more recent cases. For
instance, Wilson20 involved respiratory decline and intubation, complications like bed
sores and shingles, a longer hospital stay, and a higher number of PT sessions. But the
19 I have also reviewed additional records that reflect that as of August 2021, Petitioner had been walking
1 – 2 miles daily, but injured his knee tripping over a dog leash. No provider endorsed this injury as a
sequela of GBS. See generally Exs. 21, 24; Ex. 25 at 5 – 8.
20 Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-588V, 2021 WL 5143925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 5,
2021) (awarding $175,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
12

Case 1:21-vv-01132-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/29/24 Page 13 of 13
petitioner’s overall recovery in the most important areas of function and mobility was
good, notwithstanding some residual effects and disruptions to leisure pursuits. Wilson,
2021 WL 5143925, at *4 – 5. And Schenck21 involved a “mild GBS illness which had
resolved, except for some residual tingling in his feet within less than two months” – but
enhanced suffering in light of the petitioner’s wife’s recovery from recent brain surgery;
his mother’s passing; and the Pandemic’s ongoing impact around his GBS onset in late
2020. Schenck, 2023 WL 2534594, at *3 – 4.
Overall based on past experience and my review of this particular case’s
evidence, I find it fair and appropriate to award Mr. Holmberg $170,000.00 for his
past pain and suffering.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $170,915.57 (representing $170,000.00 for past pain and
suffering, 22 and $915.57 for past unreimbursable expenses23) in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would
be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
21 Schenck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1768V, 2023 WL 2534594 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
10, 2023) ($150,000.00).
22 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
23 Petitioner initially requested $1,222.72. Brief at 13, see also Exs. 31 – 32 (supporting documentation).
Respondent supported the majority of expenses but opposed $307.15 spent on hotel accommodations.
Response at 12; see also Ex. 31 at 1, 11. I agree that this expense is not compensable, as it was not
incurred “by or on behalf of Petitioner,” who was inpatient at the time, and could not have utilized the hotel
room. It seems more likely that family members were staying there to be closer to him. See Vaccine Act
Section 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner did not further defend this cost in his Reply. Therefore, Petitioner will be
awarded $915.57 in reimbursement of past medical expenses.
24 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.
13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01132-cl-extra-11107054
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-24
Pages: 1
Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10640467
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 21-1132V


 DONALD HOLMBERG,
                                                             Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
 v.                                                          Filed: June 23, 2025


 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES,

                        Respondent.


Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.

Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.

                       DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

        On March 29, 2021, Donald Holmberg 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 following his receipt of an influenza vaccine on
January 28, 2020, he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at ¶¶ 1, 24-
25. I issued a factual finding regarding symptom onset on June 23, 2023 (ECF No. 38)
and a decision awarding damages on October 7, 2024 (ECF No. 51), following briefing
by the parties.

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 (2018).
      Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $103,511.32, representing the following subtotals:

      1) $99,173.20 for attorney’s fees based upon work performed at Petitioner’s
         counsel’s former law firm (Maglio, Christopher, & Toale);

      2) $3,298.00 for attorney’s fees based upon work performed at Petitioner’s
         counsel’s current law firm (Siri & Glimstad); and

      3) $1,040.12 for attorney’s costs incurred by Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, but
         already reimbursed by Siri & Glimstad.

Petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed Nov. 5, 2024, ECF No. 56. In
accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that
he incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 56-7.

        Respondent reacted to the motion on November 19, 2024, indicating that he is
satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met
in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion.
Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 57. Petitioner has filed no reply.

       I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find
reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons
stated below.

                                       ANALYSIS

        The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section
15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific
billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the
service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee
requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to
reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for
the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request
sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner
                                            2
notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86
Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of
petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

       The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl.
Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1.
Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours
that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.

                                          ATTORNEY FEES

       With the exception of the 2024 hourly rate for attorney Catherine Costigan, the
rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and
consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. The hourly rate
requested for the 1.2 hours of work billed by Ms. Costigan in 2024 ($410) is higher than
that previously awarded ($395). See Eckert v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-
1259V, 2024 WL 1999694, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 3, 2024). Application of the
previously awarded lower hourly rate results in a reduction of $18.00.3

       Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to
briefing entitlement and damages to be excessive. See Petitioner’s Motion for Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Entitlement to Compensation and Damages,
filed Aug. 24, 2022, ECF No. 29; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and
Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on Entitlement, filed Oct. 28, 2022, ECF No.
34; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Brief on Damages, filed
Nov. 15, 2023, ECF No. 46. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 41.2 hours
drafting the entitlement and damages brief, 15.2 hours drafting the entitlement reply brief,
and 7.0 hours drafting the damages reply brief, totaling 63.44 hours. ECF No. 56-5 at 25-

3 This amount is calculated as follows: ($410 - $395) x 1.2 hrs. = $18.00.


4 These totals are calculated as follows: 56.4 hours billed on 5/24/22, 5/26/22, 6/10/22, 7/21/22, 7/22/22,

7/25/22, 8/1/22, 8/2/22, 8/8/22, 8/10/22, 8/16/22, 10/7/22, 10/10/22, 10/13/22, 10/24/22, and 10/28/22 at a
rate of $460 by Alison Haskins; and 7.0 hours billed on 11/6/23, 11/14/23, and 11/15/23 at a rate of $492
by Alison Haskins. ECF No. 56-5 at 25-30.

                                                     3
30.

       My above calculation does not include time spent communicating with Petitioner
and preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or signed
declarations, which is being awarded in full. See, e.g., ECF No. 56-5 at 26 (entries dated
6/28/22). Nor did I include time spent finalizing the initial demand (14.8 hours). See ECF
56-5 at 23.

        It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing entitlement and
damages in this case. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be
compared to time spent in this matter),5 in which attorneys have accomplished this task
in less than half the time.6 Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for damages
briefing (a total of 63.4 hours, or $29,388.00) by thirty percent. Such an across-the-
board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)7 fairly captures the overbilling
evidenced by this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant”
in identifying with specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub-area of work
performed on the case. This results in a reduction of $8,816.40.8




5 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are

excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

6 See, e.g., Farris v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0751V (Jan. 23, 2025) (17.8 and 18.5 hours

drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief in a GBS case, respectively); Kresl v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0518V (Dec. 31, 2024) (16.7 and 15.3 hours drafting a damages brief and
responsive damages brief in a GBS case, respectively); L.M. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
0890V (Dec. 30, 2024) (9.8, 10.1, 3.5, and 8.6 hours drafting separate entitlement and damages briefs and
responsive briefs, respectively); C.G v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0296V (Dec. 26, 2024) (10.8,
6.0, 9.7, and 4.5 hours drafting separate entitlement and damages briefs and responsive briefs,
respectively); Schwalm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0066V (Dec. 2, 2024) (12.2 and 6.9 hours
billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief,
respectively); Stanton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0360V (Nov. 25, 2024) (15.9 and 4.5 hours
billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief,
respectively); These decisions can (or will) be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website,
and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited June 20, 2025).

7 Special masters are permitted to employ percentage reductions to hours billed, provided the reduction is

sufficiently explained. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107, 111 (2017);
Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 702-704 (2016); Sabella v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 214 (2009).
8 This amount is calculated as follows: 56.4 hrs. x $460 x .30 + 7.0 hrs. x $492 x .30 = $8,816.40

                                                     4
                                          ATTORNEY COSTS

        The expense totals submitted by the two respective law firms in this case differ by
$42.34. Compare ECF No. 56-3 with ECF No. 56-4 at 1-2. This discrepancy is due to the
failure of the Siri & Glimstad firm to include items found on the Maglio, Christopher, &
Toale list, specifically a credit of $75.00 paid to correct duplicative billing by Harris
Investigations and expenses of $7.15, $25.00, and $0.51 (totaling $32.66). Because
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all costs claimed by the Maglio,
Christopher, & Toale firm, I will reimburse these costs, and I will subtract the $75.00 credit
paid to correct the duplicative billing. ECF No. 56-4. I find costs in the amount of
$997.78 to be reasonable, and Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or
amounts sought. ECF No. 57.


                                         CONCLUSION

       The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $94,634.58, representing the following
subtotals:

       1)      $90,338.80 for attorney’s fees based upon work performed at
               Petitioner’s counsel’s former law firm (Maglio, Christopher, & Toale);

       2)      $3,298.00 for attorney’s fees based upon work performed at
               Petitioner’s counsel’s current law firm (Siri & Glimstad); and

       3)      $997.78 for attorney’s costs incurred by Maglio, Christopher, & Toale,
               but already reimbursed by Siri & Glimstad,

to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for
prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix
B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with
this Decision.9




9 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
                                                 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.


                        s/Brian H. Corcoran
                        Brian H. Corcoran
                        Chief Special Master




                    6