VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01554
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01554
Petitioner: Darcy Weidner
Filed: 2021-07-07
Decided: 2023-11-21
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-04
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 163000

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 7, 2021, Darcy Weidner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 4, 2019. Ms. Weidner was 19 years old at the time of vaccination, working as a nursing assistant, and had a one-year-old child. Her pre-vaccination medical history included Von Willebrand’s disease and chest palpitations. Approximately ten days after vaccination, on October 14, 2019, she presented to the emergency room, but not with GBS-like symptoms. About a month later, on November 11, 2019, she returned to the ER with severe lower back pain, fever, nausea, vomiting, and numbness in her left lower extremity. While hospitalized, she experienced a loss of sensation in her legs and fingers. She was transferred to a neurology ICU, where she was assessed with symmetrical bilateral weakness and numbness concerning for GBS. A lumbar puncture showed no abnormalities. She received IVIG treatment and began physical and occupational therapies. By November 18, 2019, she reported improvement and was discharged with orders for home-health PT/OT. She continued to experience symptoms including diffuse aches, daily headaches/weekly migraines, and numbness and tingling. Her Gabapentin dosage was increased. In January 2020, she experienced a syncopal episode, which her physician attributed to lingering parasympathetic dysfunction from her GBS. In February 2020, she had a second syncopal episode, and her cardiologist later opined that GBS might be a precipitating factor. By June 2020, her GBS-related pain was improving and manageable. In July 2021, she reported widespread pain, and her neurologist suspected fibromyalgia. In April 2022, she presented with a severe headache/migraine, and an examination confirmed baseline extremity sensory deficit due to GBS and some right-sided facial numbness. She also reported chronic numbness and tingling in her upper lower extremities since GBS, which worsened during headaches. Her neurosurgeon attributed her headaches to ocular migraines or tension-type headaches. Affidavits submitted by Ms. Weidner indicated ongoing sequelae of GBS, including numbness, weakness, tingling, migraines, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, and fatigue, which impacted her ability to work, focus on schoolwork, and care for her child. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, stating that the flu vaccination was documented, the onset of symptoms was consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table criteria, clinical findings were consistent with GBS, and no other condition explained her symptoms. The respondent also agreed that the injury lasted for at least six months. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on July 8, 2022, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to resolve damages informally, leading to a damages hearing on October 6, 2023. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on November 21, 2023, awarding Ms. Weidner $163,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. The Special Master considered the severity and duration of her GBS, noting it was a moderate injury but acknowledging the frightening nature of GBS. The award was based on the moderate acute phase of treatment, impact on her ability to care for her child and work, and lingering deficits, while also considering that her recovery was good overall and not as severe as some other GBS cases. Petitioner was represented by David John Carney of Green & Schafle LLC, and Respondent was represented by Michael Johnson Dunn Brown and later Katherine Carr Esposito of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Darcy Weidner, vaccinated with an influenza vaccine on October 4, 2019, alleged Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the vaccination was documented, symptom onset met Vaccine Injury Table criteria, clinical findings were consistent with GBS, and no other condition explained the symptoms. The injury was also found to have lasted at least six months. The case proceeded to a damages hearing before Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The Special Master awarded $163,000.00 for pain and suffering, finding the GBS injury to be of moderate severity. The award considered the acute treatment phase, impact on her ability to care for her child and work, and lingering sequelae, while also noting her overall good recovery. Petitioner was represented by David John Carney (Green & Schafle LLC) and Respondent by Michael Johnson Dunn Brown and Katherine Carr Esposito (U.S. Department of Justice). The decision was issued on November 21, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01554-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/08/2022) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 24 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1554V
UNPUBLISHED
DARCY WEIDNER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 8, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Michael Johnson Dunn Brown, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 7, 2021, Darcy Weidner filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”)
as a result of an influenza vaccination she received on October 4, 2019. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 8, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent states that “Petitioner’s flu vaccination was adequately
documented; the onset of symptoms was consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table onset
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 24 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 2
criteria; clinical findings and course of peripheral neuropathy are consistent with a
common subtype of GBS in accordance with the Table Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain her
symptoms.” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that “Petitioner has satisfied the statutory
requirement that Petitioner’s injury lasted for at least six months.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01554-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-21
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/13/2023) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1554V
DARCY WEIDNER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 13, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 7, 2021, Darcy Weidner filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a
result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 4, 2019. Petition at 1, ECF No.
1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters,
and although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties could not informally resolve
damages.
For the reasons set forth below, and after hearing argument from the parties, I find
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $163,000.00, for actual pain
and suffering.
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the
E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (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-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 10
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately one year after this case was initiated, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c)
Report in July 2022 conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF No. 18.
A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on the same day. ECF No. 19. The parties thereafter
attempted to informally resolve damages but were unsuccessful. ECF No. 26. I issued a
scheduling order on October 18, 2022, regarding the briefing of disputed damages issues.
Non-PDF Order, docketed Oct. 18, 2022. The parties subsequently filed their respective
briefs. ECF Nos. 28-30. I proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their
positions at a “Motions Day” hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed damages
issue. ECF No. 33. The parties agreed and the hearing was held as scheduled on October
6, 2023.3 ECF No. 34; Min. Entry, docketed Oct. 10, 2023. The disputed matter is now
ripe for a determination.
II. Relevant Medical History
Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical history is relevant for Von Willebrand’s
disease (a blood clotting disorder) and chest palpitations. Petitioner was 19-years-old,
working as a nursing assistant/aide, and had a one-year-old child at the time of her
vaccination on October 4, 2019. Ex. 1 at 18; Ex. 2. Ten days post-vaccination, on October
14, 2019, Petitioner presented to the emergency room (“ER”) but did not complain of
GBS-type symptoms. Ex. 3 at 123-26.
Approximately one month later, on November 11, 2019, Petitioner returned to the
ER complaining of severe diffuse lower back pain, fever, nausea, vomiting, lower left
abdominal pain upon standing, and “some numbness diffusely throughout the left lower
extremity.” Ex. 3 at 181. She was admitted. Id. While hospitalized, on November 12, 2019,
Petitioner underwent an MRI that revealed “L5-SI central minimal eccentric right
paracentral HNP” but was otherwise unremarkable. Id. at 271-72. CT scans of Petitioner’s
lower extremities (“LEs”) and abdominal pelvis were normal. Id. at 274. Petitioner was
expected to be discharged when appropriate. Id. at 206.
However, while lying in the MRI on November 12, 2019, Petitioner “began to lose
all sensation within [her] legs and fingers.” Ex. 2 ¶ 10. Based on Petitioner’s new
complaints, she was transferred to a higher-level care facility (the neurology ICU) and
admitted on November 13, 2019. Ex. 3 at 199; Ex. 4 at 27. Upon admission, Petitioner
was assessed with “symmetrical bilateral weakness and numbness concerning for GBS,
3 At the end of the hearing held on October 6, 2023, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on damages in
this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing, which is yet to be filed with the
case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 10
generalized lower back pain[.]” Ex. 4 at 29. A repeat MRI was unremarkable except for
bulging discs. Id. at 34, 38.
The same day as her MRI, on November 13, 2019, Petitioner was seen by
neurology. Ex. 4 at 38. Following an examination, the impression was noted as “possible
[GBS]. Rule out other condition.” Id. A lumbar puncture performed on November 14, 2019,
showed no abnormalities. Id. at 34-35. Petitioner’s neurologist recommended that
Petitioner be transferred to another hospital for an EMG and “specialized care.” Id.; Ex. 5
at 62. Petitioner was transported to another facility via ambulance and received
hemodynamic monitoring and IVIG treatment during transport. Ex. 5 at 62.
The same day, November 14, 2019, Petitioner arrived at the third facility and an
EMG did “not clearly reveal[] a primary neurogenic or myopathic process” (or otherwise
confirm GBS). Ex. 5 at 62, 76, 155. She was told to continue IVIG (empirically),
Gabapentin, and to begin physical and occupational therapies (“PT/OT”). Id. at 74, 76,
111. Petitioner underwent an initial PT/OT evaluation on November 15, 2019, and
additional sessions of PT and OT were deemed necessary. Id. at 490-500.
On November 18, 2019, Petitioner underwent her final round of a five-day course
of IVIG. Ex. 5 at 190. Following this treatment, she reported improvement in her weakness
and “was able to ambulate by herself with some unsteadiness.” Id. at 111. Petitioner was
reassessed by PT/OT at this time, and she indicated a desire to continue at-home
exercises instead of in-patient rehabilitation. Id. at 77, 118, 194. Petitioner was discharged
with an order for home-health PT/OT services. Id. at 111, 183, 203. Three days later, on
November 21, 2019, Petitioner returned to the ER complaining of an acute onset
headache and “left calf pain for a few days.” Ex. 3 at 312. An examination revealed normal
strength in her UEs and LEs. Id. Petitioner was discharged. Id. at 313.
Petitioner had a follow-up with neurology on December 6, 2019. Ex. 5 at 596. She
indicated she was “doing better” since discharge from the hospital and had regained some
strength after participating in in-home PT but “unfortunately, she is feeling aches diffusely,
in her legs, back and shoulders. This has worsened since her discharge.” Id. She also
noted daily headaches/weekly migraines and that Gabapentin was no longer helping. Id.
Petitioner’s neurologist’s assessment indicated that Petitioner was “clinically recovering
well” from her GBS. Id. at 600. Petitioner’s Gabapentin dosage was increased and she
was ordered to continue PT. Id.
Petitioner returned to work in January of 2020. On January 22, 2020, Petitioner
presented to the ER complaining of a “syncopal episode while assisting with a central line
insertion in [the] ICU.” Ex. 3 at 374, 407. An examination revealed normal strength and
sensation in UEs and LEs, intact cranial nerves, and 2+ patellar DTRs. Id. at 375. The
3

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 4 of 10
physician did not think Petitioner had a seizure but rather it was “[m]ore likely [Petitioner]
has some lingering parasympathetic dysfunction from her recent [GBS] causing
vasovagal syncope.” Id. She received fluids and was discharged. Id.
The next day, on January 23, 2020, Petitioner followed up with neurology. Ex. 5 at
633. Petitioner’s neurologist addressed Petitioner’s GBS and wrote her “strength is intact
today; [DTRs] have returned and are normal; her achy pain continues . . . [she was]
advised to seek out [treatment at a] pain clinic for further pain control[; the neurologist]
expect[s Petitioner’s] pain will subside as she continues to heal.” Id. at 636.
Petitioner experienced a second syncopal episode on February 14, 2020. Ex. 5 at
662. The ER physician noted that Petitioner “does have [a] recent history of [GBS,] which
has been treated;” she was no longer receiving PT treatment. Id. at 662, 686, 693.
Petitioner was assessed with syncope and collapse, with a concern for ventricular
tachycardia, and she was admitted. See id. at 663-64, 668, 686, 693. While admitted, on
February 15, 2020, Petitioner reported that she was “doing better from her [GBS].” Id. at
698. Petitioner was to wear a Holter monitor and continue her medications for GBS
(Gabapentin and tramadol). Id. at 701. During an April 6, 2020 follow up with cardiology,
Petitioner’s treater opined it was “likely that her recent episode of [GBS] may be a
precipitating factor for these episodes.” Ex. 12 at 62, 79.
By June 19, 2020, Petitioner reported to her neurologist that her GBS-related pain
was improving and “fairly mild at this point;” the pain was manageable with no medications
(except OTCs). Ex. 14 at 43. A November 2, 2020 follow up visit with cardiology reveals
that while Petitioner’s cardiologist originally believed Petitioner’s syncopal symptoms
were “vasovagal in origin,” it now appears Petitioner “might have some form of
[supraventricular tachycardia].” Ex. 12 at 193.
On July 12, 2021, Petitioner had a follow-up with her neurologist complaining of
“widespread pain following GBS, which we have been managing since then.” Ex. 15 at
55. Petitioner’s neurologist assessed her with chronic pain and “suspect[ed] fibromyalgia
at this point.” Id. at 58.
Approximately nine months later, on April 21, 2022, Petitioner returned to the ER
for a severe headache/migraine. Ex. 16 at 158. An examination confirmed “baseline
extremity sensory deficit due to [GBS]. Some right-sided facial numbness.” Id. at 160. On
May 13, 2022, Petitioner presented to a neurosurgeon for her recurring headaches
present “since elementary school.” Ex. 15 at 220-21. These headaches were occurring
once per week and were associated with blurry vision, loss of vision, nausea and vomiting,
facial weakness, elevated BP, and “pressure related” frontal headaches. Id. Petitioner
indicated that she also had “bilateral paresthesias at times” but “no balance problems,”
4

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 5 of 10
and “chronic numbness and tingling in her upper [LE]” since having GBS, which all
worsened during these headaches. Id. at 217, 221. The neurosurgeon felt that Petitioner’s
“symptoms are most related to ocular migraines or tension type headache.” Id. at 221. A
repeat MRI was recommended. Id. Additional medical records have not been filed.
Petitioner submitted affidavits describing the course of her illness and treatment.
Exs. 2, 18. The affidavits indicate Petitioner continues to experience some sequalae of
her GBS, including some numbness, weakness, tingling in her extremities, migraines,
heart palpitations, shortness of breath, and fatigue. They also note that Petitioner had to
cut back her hours at work, eventually causing her to leave her job in the ICU, she
struggled to focus on schoolwork, and she could not care and play with her toddler for
long periods of time as a result of her GBS-related symptoms.
III. 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, 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). 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 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) (“Awards for emotional distress are
inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical formula”);
Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is inherently a
subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (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)).
Special masters may consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in a specific
5

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 6 of 10
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 also rely on my own
experience adjudicating similar claims.4 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). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering
is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
IV. Appropriate Compensation in this Matter
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. Petitioner was a competent
adult with no impairments that would impact her consciousness of her injury. Therefore, I
analyze principally the severity and duration of the injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole, including the
medical records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties in written
documents, and the parties’ arguments during the expedited damages hearing.
Petitioner’s medical records and affidavits provide a credible description of her GBS
injury, with a moderately-severe acute phase of GBS, requiring presentation at the ER
within roughly one month of vaccination; a six-day hospitalization; treatment at
increasingly higher-level facilities; diagnostic procedures including MRIs, an EMG, CT,
LP; one five-day course of IVIG treatment; discharge to in-home PT/OT; and continued
use of Gabapentin. Petitioner showed and reported improvement after her initial treatment
course. She was able to ambulate by herself, albeit with some unsteadiness, by the time
of her hospital discharge on November 18, 2019, and by late January of 2020, her
strength and DTRs were normal. Although I credit Petitioner’s assertions that she
currently continues to have ongoing sequelae of her GBS, including numbness and
tingling throughout the body, her GBS recovery has been good overall – a fact supported
by her medical records. E.g., Ex. 5 at 596; Ex. 6 at 636.
I further give weight to Petitioner’s argument (and Respondent’s counter) that
Petitioner’s syncopal episodes during 2020 were originally thought by Petitioner’s treaters
to be related to her GBS, but that by November 2020, another explanation
(supraventricular tachycardia) was believed to be a potential cause of such ongoing
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases were assigned to former Chief Special Master
Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief
Special Master.
6

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 7 of 10
symptoms. Petitioner’s overall treatment course has therefore been moderate but lengthy
compared to many. Her personal circumstances at the time of vaccination (being a young,
single mother working full-time while attempting to go to nursing school) likely
exacerbated the uncertainty surrounding her treatment course. Yet, Petitioner’s case is
not as severe as the worst GBS cases wherein petitioners remain non-ambulatory or
significantly disabled.
In her briefings and during the damages hearing, Petitioner cites to a number of
damages decisions involving GBS injuries and highlights the similarities between the
petitioners in those cases and Petitioner. Motion at 1; Reply at 2.5 Petitioner argues that
an award of $175,000.00 is appropriate in this case. Motion at 1. Petitioner bases this
request on her “initial presentation, long and intense treatment, lengthy hospital
admission, extensive rehabilitation, and current and ongoing sequelae over three years
later[.]” Id. at 18. Respondent, on the other hand, argues Petitioner suffered a more mild
course of GBS than other cases,6 due to her six-day hospitalization, discharge with the
ability to ambulate, and no in-patient rehabilitation. Response at 11. As a result,
Respondent proposes an award of only $97,500.00. Id.
Based upon the forgoing, and considering the parties’ written and oral arguments,
I find that Petitioner suffered a moderate GBS injury – although as a class, GBS injuries
are distinguishable from many other kinds of common Program vaccine injuries. As I have
noted in prior decisions, GBS constitutes a particularly frightening type of vaccine injury
– and as a result, a higher-than-average pain and suffering award is appropriate. See
Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685 at *5 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021).
5 In particular, Petitioner cited to W.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1634V, 2020 WL 5509686,
at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020) (awarding $155,000 for pain and suffering in a generally mild GBS
case); Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
29, 2019) (awarding $170,000 for past pain and suffering); Devlin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
19-191V, 2020 WL 5512502 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020) (awarding $180,000 for pain and suffering);
McCray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-277V, 2021 WL 4618549 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31,
2021) (awarding $180,000 for pain and suffering); Clemens v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
1547V, 2022 WL 2288515 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 17, 2022) (awarding $180,000 for pain and suffering);
Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL 1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26,
2020) (awarding $180,000 for pain and suffering); Hernandez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
1572V, 2023 WL 3317354 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 6, 2023) (awarding $192,000 for pain and suffering).
6 In particular, Respondent cited to Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-588V, 2021 WL
5143925, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 5, 2021) (awarding $175,000 for pain and suffering); Bircheat v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 19-1088V, 2021 WL 3026880, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2021)
(awarding $170,000 for pain and suffering); Castellanos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1710V,
No. 19-1710V, 2022 WL 1482497, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2022) (awarding $125,000 for pain
and suffering); Granville v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 6441388 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 30, 2023) (awarding $92,500 for pain and suffering).
7

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 8 of 10
At the same time, however, the considerations that always impact how a pain and
suffering award is calculated – level of pain, length of hospitalization and inpatient
rehabilitation, degree and number of procedures for treatment, duration of treatment, and
overall recovery – bear herein on the final figure to be awarded. Some GBS injuries
feature permanent disabilities, while others are characterized by a better recovery. Here,
Petitioner’s GBS injury required moderate acute medical treatment, including one 5-day
course of IVIG treatment and in-home PT/OT; it impacted her ability to care for her young
child for over three years; and it caused her to leave a position as a nurse’s aide in the
hospital/ICU (which she loved) for an administrative position in a doctor’s office. However,
her subsequent condition is much improved, even accounting for some lingering deficits
common to GBS’s aftermath (numbness, tingling). I also accept that Petitioner had pre-
existing comorbidities that would not necessarily be expected to improve following receipt
of a flu vaccine and therefore Petitioner’s clinical course and lingering sequelae may have
been exacerbated by such comorbidities. The exacerbation of pre-existing comorbidities
speaks to a higher award for pain and suffering.
I find the comparable damages determinations offered by Petitioner to be helpful,
but many involve damage awards higher than what is warranted here. In such cases,
where pain and suffering awards mainly ranged from $170,000.00 to $180,000.00, the
injured parties experienced worse prognoses subsequent to the initial hospitalizations,
and continued to require medication for pain specifically related to the GBS. See
Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *14 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019); Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V,
2020 WL 1915138, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2020). In cases where more than
$175,000.00 was awarded for pain and suffering, petitioners tend to experience ongoing
true GBS-related issues, more than expected sequelae. And many faced permanent
limitations on the nature of the work they could perform. I recognize that Petitioner has
some long-lasting sequelae from her GBS, but they do not appear to be as severe as
those cases cited by Petitioner. In fact, Petitioner’s neurologist specifically stated that
Petitioner was recovering well. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 596.
Additionally, at the expedited hearing, Petitioner primarily relied on the Hernandez
case – in which the petitioner received a past pain and suffering award in the amount of
$192,000.00 due to the impact on the petitioner’s ability to parent her three young children
and care for her father-in-law who had suffered a stroke – to support her request for past
pain and suffering. No. 21-1572V, 2023 WL 3317354 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 6, 2023).
While Petitioner’s ability to care for her young child was likewise impacted by her GBS, it
does not appear to have been to the same extent as Hernandez. Petitioner was never
wheelchair bound, there is no evidence that she required substantial assistance with her
activities of daily living, and she returned to work and driving within a few months of onset,
whereas, for example, Hernandez could not drive for three years.
8

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 9 of 10
Respondent’s proposed comparables, however, are less helpful, since they do not
provide a basis on which to rely on for an award below $100,000.00 in a GBS case. At
best, Respondent cited Granville v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., wherein the petitioner
received $92,500.00 in past pain and suffering (although the sum awarded therein is less
than what Respondent proposes). No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 6441388 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 30, 2023). But Petitioner ought to be awarded more than in Granville. While both
petitioners received similar initial treatment courses (including five and six-day
hospitalizations and five-day courses of IVIG), the Granville petitioner admittedly “fully
recovered” within seven months of hospitalization, whereas Petitioner still experiences
some lingering sequelae. Further, there is no evidence that Granville involved a single
mother caring for a young child during her treatment course – a factor favoring a higher
award. The other closer comparable offered by Respondent, Castellanos, is also
distinguishable because that petitioner only narrowly satisfied the six-month severity
requirement, and therefore had a much shorter injury course – reflected by a lower award.
No. 19-1710V, No. 19-1710V, 2022 WL 1482497, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30,
2022).
As noted during the hearing, I deemed the Gruba case – involving a past pain and
suffering award of $165,000.00 – to also be instructive. No. 19-1157V, 2021 WL 1925630
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 13, 2021). Like Petitioner herein, the Gruba claimant had a
moderate acute phase, with presentation to her PCP within six weeks of vaccination,
followed by a hospital stay, and IVIG; she treated for approximately three years; and she
has long-term residual numbness attributed to her GBS. That petitioner had to leave her
job at a childcare facility because she was unable to handle the physical demands of her
position and could no longer receive future vaccinations as a result of her GBS. Both
petitioners therefore experienced real-life implications of their injury in terms of
employment. Gruba is distinguishable somewhat, since that claimant underwent a ten-
day hospitalization, followed by an additional nine days of in-patient rehabilitation.
Petitioner’s hospitalization was shorter than Gruba’s, and she did not require in-patient
rehabilitation at all. These differences dictate that Petitioner should be awarded slightly
less than the Gruba petitioner, while still taking into account Petitioner’s circumstances of
being a young single mother throughout her injury course.
For these reasons, I do not find that the GBS injury and its sequelae were of such
high severity to justify an award of the magnitude requested by Petitioner. The actual pain
and suffering component will nonetheless be larger than in many vaccine injury cases,
simply for the reason (as I stated at hearing) that the severe and frightening quality of an
immune-mediated injury like GBS warrants commensurate damages. But the fact that this
case of GBS was a bit less severe than comparable instances means that the actual
award should be slightly lower. I therefore award actual pain and suffering of $163,000.00.
9

Case 1:21-vv-01554-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/23 Page 10 of 10
V. CONCLUSION
In light of all of the above, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$163,000.00, (representing compensation for actual pain and suffering) in the form
of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7 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.
10