VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01311
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01311
Petitioner: Chad Adaway
Filed: 2022-12-28
Decided: 2023-01-31
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-05-05
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 95000

AI-assisted case summary:
Chad Adaway filed a petition on December 28, 2022, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Tdap vaccines on May 5, 2018. Mr. Adaway further alleged that he experienced residual effects from this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccines caused his GBS or any other injury, and also denied that his current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on December 22, 2022. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. Chad Adaway was awarded a lump sum of $95,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under the Act. The decision was issued on January 31, 2023. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Milton C. Ragsdale, IV represented the Petitioner, and Nina Ren represented the Respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Chad Adaway alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Tdap vaccines on May 5, 2018, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied causation and sequela. The parties stipulated to settle the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding Petitioner $95,000.00 in a lump sum. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. The attorneys involved were Milton C. Ragsdale, IV for Petitioner and Nina Ren for Respondent. The decision date was January 31, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01311-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-31
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/28/2022) regarding 23 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1311V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chief Special Master Corcoran
CHAD ADAWAY, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: December 28, 2022
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Milton C. Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 4, 2021, Chad Adaway filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered
from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his receipt of the Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B,
and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines on May 5, 2018. Moreover, Petitioner
alleges that he 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-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the vaccines in question caused Petitioner to suffer GBS or any
other injury or condition. Respondent also denies that Petitioner’s current condition is a sequela of
the vaccine-related injury. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on December 22, 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 $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. 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.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01311-UNJ Document 27 Filed 01/31/23 Page 7 of 7