VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01615
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01615
Petitioner: Roger Nyhuis
Filed: 2021-07-26
Decided: 2023-03-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-20
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 179831

AI-assisted case summary:
Roger Nyhuis filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 26, 2021, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 20, 2018. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Mr. Nyhuis is entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that Mr. Nyhuis suffered from GBS and satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, which afforded him a presumption of vaccine causation, provided the onset of GBS occurred between three and forty-two days after the vaccination, there was no more likely alternative diagnosis, and no apparent alternative cause. Following the concession of entitlement, the parties were unable to resolve the amount of damages, leading to a briefing schedule on the matter. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the case. Mr. Nyhuis sought $180,000.00 for pain and suffering, while the respondent argued for $110,000.00. Mr. Nyhuis emphasized the 34-day hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation, a Foley catheter injury during a transfer, the need for assistance with basic tasks, inability to work for four months, and continued need for pain medication and Gabapentin more than a year post-vaccination. The respondent characterized Mr. Nyhuis's GBS illness as relatively mild, noting his significant improvement at home and lack of interest in physical therapy, and argued that his lingering neuropathy and incontinence were attributed to diabetes, not GBS. Chief Special Master Corcoran considered the severity and duration of Mr. Nyhuis's illness, noting he was 71 years old at the time of vaccination. The Special Master reviewed medical records, affidavits, and party assertions, and considered prior pain and suffering awards in similar GBS cases. The Special Master found that Mr. Nyhuis suffered from a moderately severe GBS illness, involving difficulties standing and walking, and requiring hospitalization and rehabilitation. The Special Master noted that Mr. Nyhuis's GBS was not diagnosed for two weeks, potentially due to pre-existing conditions, and that he experienced a urethral injury related to his Foley catheter. Although his symptoms improved after IVIG treatments, he continued to experience tingling, facial drooping, a distended abdomen, bowel incontinence, and weakness in his lower extremities. He underwent home physical and occupational therapy, and while he improved, he still experienced pain and bowel incontinence. The Special Master found that while the duration of his GBS illness was less than in some cited cases, an award on the lower end of the range of $170,000.00 to $180,000.00 was warranted due to his initial difficulties. The Special Master awarded Mr. Nyhuis a total of $179,831.38, comprising $170,000.00 for pain and suffering and $9,831.38 for past lost wages. The parties agreed on the amount for past lost wages. The decision was issued on March 13, 2023.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Roger Nyhuis, age 71, received an influenza vaccine on September 20, 2018, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The respondent conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that Petitioner satisfied the criteria in the Vaccine Injury Table for GBS, which provides a presumption of causation if onset occurs between 3 and 42 days post-vaccination, with no more likely alternative diagnosis or apparent alternative cause. The case proceeded to a damages decision after entitlement was conceded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided. Petitioner sought $180,000.00 for pain and suffering, while Respondent argued for $110,000.00. The Special Master awarded $170,000.00 for pain and suffering and $9,831.38 for past lost wages, totaling $179,831.38. The Special Master considered the Petitioner's 34-day hospitalization and rehabilitation, a Foley catheter injury, and lingering symptoms such as tingling, facial drooping, and bowel incontinence, characterizing the GBS as moderately severe. The Special Master relied on prior GBS case awards for comparison, ultimately deeming $170,000.00 fair and reasonable for pain and suffering. The public decision does not detail specific medical experts, the precise mechanism of causation, or the onset date of GBS relative to the vaccination, beyond the Table's timeframe. Attorneys for Petitioner were John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and for Respondent was Matthew Murphy of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision awarding damages was issued on March 13, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01615-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/25/2022) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 26 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1615V
UNPUBLISHED
ROGER NYHUIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 25, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Respondent. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 26, 2021, Roger Nyhuis filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 20, 2018. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 25, 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 agrees that Petitioner suffered from GBS, and that he has
satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications
and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford him a presumption of vaccine causation if
the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two (42) days after a seasonal flu
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-01615-UNJ Document 26 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 2
vaccination and there is no more likely alternative diagnosis and no apparent alternative
cause. Id. at 88 (citing 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), (c)(15).
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-01615-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/10/2023) regarding 34 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1615V
UNPUBLISHED
ROGER NYHUIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 10, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Respondent. (GBS)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 26, 2021, Roger Nyhuis filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) which
meets the Table definition for GBS or which, in the alternative, was caused-in-fact by the
influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 20, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 38. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters. After Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties were unable to resolve
damages on their own,3 so I ordered briefing on the matter.
1 Because this 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 (2012) (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).
3 Less than one month after Petitioner was determined to be entitled to compensation, Petitioner informed
me that they had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and proposed a briefing schedule upon
which the parties had agreed. Status Report, filed June 23, 2022, ECF No. 25.

Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount $179,831.38, representing $170,000.00 in actual pain and
suffering, plus $9,831.38 for past lost wages.
I. 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
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.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
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, including the majority of GBS claims, were
2

Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 3 of 7
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).
II. The Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $9,831.38 for past lost wages.
Petitioner’s Damages Brief (“Brief”) at 1-2, 37-38; Respondent’s Brief on Damages
(“Opp.”) at 1, 11 n.2, 13. Thus, the only area of disagreement is the amount of
compensation which should be awarded for Petitioner’s pain and suffering. Petitioner
seeks $180,000.00 for his past pain and suffering. Brief at 1-2, 37-38. Respondent argues
for an award of $110,000.00. Opp. at 1, 11.
Characterizing Petitioner’s GBS illness as moderate, Petitioner emphasized the
length of his hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation – totaling 34 days, his delayed
diagnosis and confusion regarding his condition, an accident involving his Foley catheter
which caused him additional pain and embarrassment, his need for assistance performing
simple tasks such as transferring to the toilet or bed while hospitalized, his inability to
work for four months, and need for pain medication and Gabapentin5 more than one year
post-vaccination. Brief at 24-28. He favorably compared the circumstances of his case
with those involving petitioner’s awarded past pain and suffering compensation ranging
from $170,000.00 to $180.000.00: Dillenbeck, Fedewa, Johnson, and Presley.6 Brief at
31-32. He insisted that his award should be greater than those given in milder cases such
as W.B. and Nelson.7 Brief at 28-30.
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.
5 “Gabapentin works in the brain to prevent seizures and relieve pain for certain conditions in the nervous
system. It is not used for routine pain caused by minor injuries or arthritis. Gabapentin is an anticonvulsant.”
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/gabapentin-oral-route/description/drg-20064011 (last
visited Feb. 8, 2023).
6 Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0428V, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
29, 2019) (a decision I issued awarding $170,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $10,857.15, the net
present value of payments of $5,000.00 per year for 22 years); Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No.17-1808V, 2020 WL 1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2020) (awarding $180,000.00 for past pain
and suffering); Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 20, 2018) (awarding $180,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Presley v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-1888V, 2020 WL 1898856 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 23, 2020) (awarding $180,000.00
for actual pain and suffering).
7 Nelson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1747V, 2021 WL 754856 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 13,
2021) (awarding $155,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); W.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-
1634V, 2020 WL 5509686 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020) (awarding $155,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering).
3

Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 4 of 7
In contrast, Respondent argued that “[P]etitioner’s course was less severe” than
those described in the four moderate cases cited by Petitioner. Opp. at 10-11.
Emphasizing Petitioner’s significant improvement when home and lack of interest in
physical therapy, he characterized Petitioner’s course as relatively mild. Id. at 9-11. He
maintained Petitioner’s “lingering neuropathy and incontinence was attributed to his
diabetes and not GBS.” Id. at 10.
In his responsive brief, Petitioner disagreed with Respondent’s characterization of
his GBS illness as mild. Petitioner’s Damages Reply Brief (“Reply”) at 1-2. He faulted
Respondent for failing to address his discussion of Nelson and W.B. or to mention his
Foley catheter injury. Id. at 3-5. He reiterated his assertion that his GBS illness was best
described as moderate. Id. at 5-7.
III. 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.8 However, I ultimately base my
determination on the circumstances of this case.
The evidence shows that Petitioner - aged 71 when vaccinated - suffered from a
GBS illness involving moderately severe symptoms, such as difficulties standing and
walking, and requiring a total of 34 days of hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation with
four transfers between two hospitals and an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Exhibits 5-7.
Because some of his initial symptoms may have pre-dated his vaccination and been due
8 Statistical data for all GBS cases resolved in SPU by proffered amounts from inception through January
1, 2023 reveals the median amount awarded to be $170,000.00. The awards in these cases - totaling 261,
have typically ranged from $125,196.11 to $250,000.00, representing cases between the first and third
quartiles and awards comprised of all categories of compensation – including lost wages. 33 cases include
the creation of an annuity to provide for future expenses.
Past pain and suffering amounts awarded in substantive decisions issued in 21 SPU GBS cases range
from $125,000.00 to $192,500.00, with an additional case involving annuity payments. The median amount
award in these 22 cases was $165,000.00. Awards in cases falling with the first and third quartiles range
from $155,000.00 to $180,000.00.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 5 of 7
to his other conditions of high blood pressure and diabetes, Petitioner’s GBS was not
diagnosed for two weeks. Exhibit 5 at 14, 19, 75; Exhibit 6 at 13, 19-20, 43, 64-69, 82-83,
530-31; Exhibit 7 at 13. Shortly after, Petitioner experienced an injury to his urethra when
his Foley catheter was ripped out during a transfer from chair to bed. Exhibit 5 at 228.
Thereafter, he had to endure difficulties related to the replacement of the catheter and
scarring from the incident. Id. at 118-19, 167, 229.
Although Petitioner’s symptoms improved after he received five IVIG treatments,
he continued to experience some tingling in his hands, facial drooping, a distended
abdomen, bowel incontinence, and weakness and a lack of sensation in his lower
extremities. Exhibit 5 at 226. Following his discharge from inpatient rehabilitation on
November 8, 2018, Petitioner underwent two months of physical therapy (“PT”) and
occupational therapy at home. Exhibit 8. Towards the end of this therapy, he was able to
stop using crutches or a rolling walker for support, but still experienced pain in his feet –
noted to be at a level of three out of ten at the end of December. Id. at 143. Reporting
that he was sleeping in a recliner, Petitioner was still taking Gabapentin and Norco.9 He
also experienced continued bowel incontinence. Exhibit 3 at 785.
During the subsequent year, Petitioner’s bowel incontinence and strength
improved, but he continued to experience numbness and tingling in the bottoms of his
feet, tripping, and difficulties with his gait. Exhibit 3 at 704; Exhibit 9b at 190. At a
neurologic appointment in May 2019, he was advised to continue taking Gabapentin.
Exhibit 3 at 708. After he reported the same symptoms in December 2019, Petitioner’s
neurologist opined that these residual symptoms were likely to persist. Exhibit 9b at 197.
However, he still described Petitioner’s recovery as good and instructed him to gradually
wean off Gabapentin. Id.; see also id. at 190 (indicating Petitioner was already doing so
due to a concern it was causing his vision to blur).
Petitioner returned to the neurologist in September 2021, with complaints of
tingling on the tops and bottoms of his feet, lower extremity weakness, memory loss, and
bowel incontinence. Exhibit 9a at 238-39. However, the neurologist observed that some
of his symptoms could be attributed to alcohol abuse and long-term diabetic neuropathy.
Id. at 245.
The cases cited by Petitioner involving past pain and suffering awards ranging from
$170,000.00 to $180,000.00 offer helpful comparisons in this case. The petitioners in
those cases experienced similar symptoms, hospitalizations, and recovery to the
Petitioner. Both petitioners in Fedewa and Presley experienced a fall and inability to get
9 Norco “is used to relieve moderate to severe pain. It contains an opioid pain reliever (hydrocodone) and
a non-opioid pain reliever (acetaminophen).” https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-63/norco-oral/details
(last visited Feb. 10, 2023).
5

Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 6 of 7
up at the onset of their symptoms, at least two trips to the hospital, and complicated or
multiple lumbar punctures. Fedewa, 2020 WL 1915138, at *2-3; Presley, 2020 WL
1898856, at *10-11. The Fedewa petitioner had difficulty tolerating the IVIG treatments,
and the Presley petitioner required IV antibiotics to treat a simultaneous UTI and infection
of his amputated leg. Fedewa, 2020 WL 1915138, at *3; Presley, 2020 WL 1898856, at
*11. All four petitioners continued to experience at least moderate GBS symptoms several
months after returning home. Fedewa, 2020 WL 1915138, at *2-3; Presley, 2020 WL
1898856, at *10-11; Johnson, 2018 WL 5024012, at *7-8; Dillenbeck, 2019 WL 4072069,
at *1-2. The Johnson and Dillenbeck petitioners were unable to return to work for several
months, and the Dillenbeck petitioner did so only due to financial pressures. Johnson,
2018 WL 5024012, at *7; Dillenbeck, 2019 WL 4072069, at *9-11.
Although Petitioner continued to require Gabapentin until more than a year post-
vaccination, the overall duration of his GBS illness was less than that described in the
four cases he cited. Fedewa, 2020 WL 1915138, at *3-4; Presley, 2020 WL 1898856, at
*11; Johnson, 2018 WL 5024012, at *8; Dillenbeck, 2019 WL 4072069, at *2. However,
he still warrants an award in this range, albeit on the lower end - $170,000.00, due to his
initial difficulties – related to the uncertainty of his diagnosis and difficulties with his Foley
catheter.
As I previously have explained during the expedited “Motions Day” hearings and
in written decisions, it is my view 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. Thus, Petitioner’s pain and suffering award
should be greater than the $110,000.00 proposed by Respondent. Weighing all of the
above, I deem an award of $170,000.00 to be fair and reasonable.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $170,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s past/actual pain and suffering.10
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $179,831.38,
representing $170,000.00 for his actual pain and suffering and $9,831.38 for his
actual lost wages in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
10 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)).
6

Case 1:21-vv-01615-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/13/23 Page 7 of 7
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11 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.
7