VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02098
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02098
Petitioner: Dana Granville
Filed: 2021-10-28
Decided: 2023-10-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-12-03
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 96008

AI-assisted case summary:
Dana Granville filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 28, 2021, alleging that she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on December 3, 2019. She was 28 years old at the time of vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, stating that Petitioner met the criteria for a Table injury, which affords a presumption of causation if GBS onset occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on August 2, 2022, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties were unable to settle damages, leading to a decision awarding damages. Petitioner alleged that her GBS course was mild but highlighted the seriousness of the injury, requiring hospitalization with IVIG treatment and significantly disrupting her life. She sought $95,000 for past pain and suffering and $3,508.66 in unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. The respondent proposed a lesser sum of $52,500 for pain and suffering, arguing Petitioner's course was mild with limited outpatient treatment and a rapid recovery. Petitioner's medical history indicated that on December 16, 2019, thirteen days after vaccination, she experienced tingling and numbness in her hands and arms, which progressed to her legs and feet, making walking difficult. She also experienced tingling in her tongue. She was admitted to the hospital on December 20, 2019, with a GBS diagnosis and received five IVIG infusions during a five-day hospitalization. She experienced some side effects from the infusions. By discharge, she reported feeling "a little unsteady on her feet" and had absent reflexes. Follow-up visits showed improvement, and by January 21, 2020, she reported being independent with all activities of daily living, driving, and working. She continued to experience sporadic numbness and tingling, but by February 24, 2020, her neurologist noted she was "doing well, no needs at this time, no signs of recurrence." She reported occasional numbness and tingling in her hands and feet, and her nose tingled a little. Her neurologist advised avoiding future flu shots. By July 15, 2020, she reported still having tingling in her hands, feet, and lower legs, sometimes interfering with sleep, and lower back pain since her lumbar puncture. Her doctor noted her "relatively full recovery" from GBS. Petitioner has since represented that she has fully recovered from her GBS and no longer experiences any symptoms related to it. Chief Special Master Corcoran, in a Decision Awarding Damages dated October 2, 2023, awarded Dana Granville $96,008.66. This amount comprised $92,500.00 for actual pain and suffering and $3,508.66 for past unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. The Special Master found that while Petitioner's GBS injury was mild, it involved significant treatment, including hospitalization and IVIG infusions. He compared her case to Geschwindner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1558V, 2022 WL 177372, where a similar mild GBS injury resulted in a different award. The Special Master determined that Petitioner's pain and suffering were substantially similar to, if slightly less than, the petitioner in Geschwindner, justifying the award of $92,500.00 for pain and suffering. The requested unreimbursed expenses were awarded in full. Petitioner's counsel was John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and respondent's counsel was Sarah Black Rifkin of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over both the entitlement and damages decisions.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Dana Granville, age 28, received an influenza vaccine on December 3, 2019, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). The respondent conceded entitlement, recognizing that Petitioner met the criteria for a Table injury, which presumes causation if GBS onset occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and no alternative cause is apparent. The public decision does not detail specific medical experts or a detailed mechanism of injury beyond the Table criteria. Petitioner's symptoms began approximately 13 days post-vaccination and progressed over several days, leading to hospitalization and IVIG treatment. She experienced a mild GBS course with a relatively quick recovery. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on August 2, 2022, and a Decision Awarding Damages on October 2, 2023. The award totaled $96,008.66, consisting of $92,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,508.66 for unreimbursed expenses. Petitioner's counsel was John Robert Howie, and respondent's counsel was Sarah Black Rifkin.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02098-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-09-01
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/02/2022) regarding 20 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ke) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2098V
UNPUBLISHED
DANA GRANVILLE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 2, 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.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 28, 2021, Dana Granville 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 as a
result of an influenza vaccine she received on December 3, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner
further alleges that her symptoms have continued for more than six months. Id. at ¶29.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 1, 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 it is his “position that Petitioner has satisfied the
criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the
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-02098-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2
Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford Petitioner a presumption of
causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal
flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 8.
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-02098-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-02
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/30/2023) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2098V
DANA GRANVILLE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 30, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Respondent. (GBS)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 28, 2021, Dana Granville 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 she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on December 3, 2019. Petition at
1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters, and although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties were not able to
settle damages.
After hearing argument from the parties at a “Motions Day” proceeding, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in the amount of $96,008.66, representing
$92,500.00 in actual pain and suffering, and $3,508.66 in unreimbursed out-of-
pocket expenses.
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).

Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
Nearly a year after the claim’s initiation, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report
conceding entitlement. ECF No. 19. However, the parties quickly determined that they
could not resolve damages on their own. ECF No. 22. Petitioner therefore filed a
Damages Brief (“Br.”) on October 19, 2022. ECF No. 26. Respondent filed a responsive
brief (“Resp.”) on November 22, 2022, and Petitioner filed a reply brief (“Repl.”) on
December 9, 2022. ECF No. 27-28. 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 issues. ECF No. 29. That hearing was held on August 25, 2023, and the case is
now ripe for resolution.
Petitioner argues that an award of $95,000 in past pain and suffering, plus
unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses of $3,508.66, is appropriate. Br. at 2. In making
her request, Petitioner acknowledges that her GBS course was mild, but highlights the
seriousness of GBS as an injury. Id. at 19. Although Petitioner recovered quickly and did
not suffer from serious complications, her GBS still required a hospital stay, with IVIG
treatment, and significantly disrupted her life. Id. at 20.
Respondent, by contrast, proposes the lesser sum of $52,500.00 as appropriate
because “Petitioner’s course was unquestionably mild.” Resp. at 5. Respondent notes
that, after her hospitalization, “Petitioner’s outpatient treatment was limited” and she
enjoyed a “rapid recovery.” Id. Respondent does not dispute Petitioner’s out-of-pocket
expenses calculation, however. Id. at 2, footnote 1.
II. Relevant Medical History
Petitioner was 28 years old and in good health when she received an influenza
vaccination on December 3, 2019. Ex. 2 at 1. She visited her primary care provider
(“PCP”) on December 16, 2019 (13 days after her vaccination), reporting that, for the
previous day or two, her hands felt cold and that she had a tingling and numb sensation
down her arms and into her hands. Ex. 3 at 120-125. The doctor diagnosed chronic neck
pain, prescribed a muscle relaxant, and referred Petitioner to physical therapy. Id. at 125.
Petitioner’s symptoms worsened to include numbness in her feet which then
spread up into her legs, groin, and buttocks, which made walking difficult. Ex. 1 at ¶7.
She also experienced tingling in her tongue. Id. She returned to her PCP on December
19, 2019. Ex. 3 at 126-132. An MRI was scheduled for the following morning and
Petitioner was prescribed prednisone. Id. at 133.
2

Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 3 of 7
On December 20, 2019, cervical and thoracic MRIs were normal. Ex. 3 at 779.
Petitioner returned to her PCP that day who referred her to the emergency room for a
lumbar puncture. Id. at 150-51. In the emergency room, Petitioner was given a lumbar
puncture, which revealed elevated CSF protein and glucose, and was admitted with a
diagnosis of GBS. Ex. 8 at 31-33.
Petitioner was hospitalized from December 20 to December 24, 2019 (5 days) and
received five IVIG infusions. Ex. 8 at 12, 60. Petitioner experienced some complications
from her IVIG infusions, including gastrointestinal symptoms, headaches, tachycardia,
and chest pain. Ex. 8 at 52-53; 55-59. During her hospitalization, she complained of
numbness and tingling in her hands, feet, legs, groin and tongue, and weakness in her
legs, however the weakness was not demonstrable on exam. Id. at 27, 40. Petitioner did
not require a swallow study and improved throughout her stay. Id. at 151. By discharge,
she reported only that she felt “a little unsteady on her feet.” Id. at 66. Her exam was
mostly normal, but with absent reflexes. Id. at 67. She was discharged home with no
medications. Id. at 14, 60.
On January 8, 2020, Petitioner returned to her PCP for a follow up visit. Ex. 3 at
155. She reported that her feet were still numb and her fingers felt “tingly.” Id. at 156.
Petitioner did not feel ready to return to work because she worked with scissors and
sewing machines and worried about cutting herself. Id. at 156. The doctor excused her
for work for 1.5 weeks and referred Petitioner for occupational therapy. Id. at 158
Petitioner returned to her PCP on January 16, 2020. Ex. 3 at 164. She reported
numbness and tingling in her hands, feet, and nose. Id. at 165. Petitioner related some
lower back pain to her lumbar puncture. Id. She requested permission to return to work
part-time and asked whether she needed continuing care from specialists because she
was feeling better. Id. at 165. The doctor “insist[ed] that she follow up with neurology,”
and encouraged her to start occupational therapy, but cleared her to return to work for
four hour shifts so long as she was given the use of a chair at work. Id. at 165-68. The
following day, Petitioner called to ask if her doctor could amend his note to clear her to
drive (as her neurologist had previously told her not to drive due to the decreased feeling
in her feet.). Ex. 3 at 173. After some follow up questions, Petitioner was allowed to drive.
Id. at 174.
On January 21, 2020, Petitioner presented for an initial occupational therapy
evaluation. Ex. 3 at 177. She now reported being independent with all activities of daily
living. Id. at 178. She reported her GBS diagnosis, headaches that were improving, neck
pain for which she was pursuing physical therapy, and numbness that was worst in the
morning but improved within ten minutes. Id. She reported that she previously could not
crouch down, but now could, and that she held the railing when going up and down stairs,
3

Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 4 of 7
which had also improved. Id. She was driving and working. Id. Petitioner was given a
home exercise program, but she and therapist agreed that she would not attend formal
occupational. Id. at 179-80.
On January 27, 2020, Petitioner presented for an initial physical therapy
evaluation. Ex. 3 at 196. She reported chronic neck pain, generalized weakness, and
“ongoing intermittent to nearly constant” numbness and tingling in her upper and lower
extremities and her nose. Id. at 197. She reported being able to do her full work duties
and daily activities without problem. Id. She completed 6 sessions of physical therapy
through March 4, 2020 – which focused primarily on headaches and neck pain. Id. at 288.
By the end of the treatment course, she reported sporadic numbness and tingling, but
reported working full 6–8-hour days without accommodation. Id. at 288.
On February 24, 2020, Petitioner returned to her neurologist for a follow up visit.
Ex. 9 at 8. She reported that she was “doing well, no needs at this time, no signs of
recurrence.” Id. She reported occasional numbness in her hands and feet and said her
“nose tingles a little.” Id. at 9. Her exam was normal. Id. at 9-10. Petitioner was advised
to avoid the flu shot in the future, but no further treatment was recommended. Id.
On July 15, 2020, Petitioner returned to her PCP. Ex. 3 at 312. Petitioner reported
still having tingling in her hands, feet, and the side of her lower legs – more at night which
sometimes interfered with her sleep. Id. at 312-13. She also reported lower back pain
since her lumbar puncture. Id. The doctor noted Petitioner’s “relatively full recovery” from
GBS. Id. at 312. The doctor discussed prescribing gabapentin or Lyrica for the tingling,
but it is not clear whether Petitioner used either medication. Id. at 313.
Petitioner has since represented that she has “fully recovered from her GBS,” and
“no longer experiences any symptoms which she relates to her GBS.” Br. at 18.
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, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment awarding such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the 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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 5 of 7
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 (citing 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 that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that 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 a decision from
several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl.
2013). Graves 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 589-90. 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 593-95. 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 offers a reasoned understanding of the issues involved in pain
and suffering calculations.
5

Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 6 of 7
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all times
Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her awareness
of her GBS. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s 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 hearing. Petitioner’s medical records
and affidavits reveal a mild case of GBS, and neither party argues otherwise. Petitioner
required a lumbar puncture, a five-day hospital stay, five IVIG infusions, limited outpatient
treatment, including one neurologist visit and one occupational therapy evaluation, and
enjoyed a quick and full recovery. Nevertheless, GBS injuries are distinguishable from
many other kinds of common Program vaccine injuries because it is a particularly
frightening type of vaccine injury – and as a result, a higher-than-average pain and
suffering award is generally appropriate. See Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021).
Petitioner primarily relied on Geschwindner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 17-1558V, 2022 WL 177372 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28, 2022) to support her
request for $95,000 in pain and suffering. The petitioner in Geschwindner also had a mild
GBS injury, which required a three-day hospital stay, oral prednisone, MRIs, EMG/NCV
testing, and eight outpatient physical therapy sessions. Id. at *1-3. She did not have IVIG
infusions or a lumbar puncture. Id. That claimant continued to be treated by a neurologist
for approximately eight months after vaccination, when her nerve testing was normal.3 Id.
Petitioner argues that her treatment course was similar, but slightly more severe, since
she required a longer hospital stay and IVIG infusions, from which she suffered side
effects (gastrointestinal symptoms, headaches, tachycardia, and chest pain). Br. at 20-
22.
Respondent acknowledged that Geschwindner is the most comparable reasoned
decision, but argued that Petitioner’s treatment course was less severe because that
petitioner did not enjoy the quick and full recovery that Ms. Granville enjoyed. Respondent
specifically noted that the Geschwindner claimant struggled to stand longer than 15-30
minutes after her hospitalization, and required follow-up care from her neurologist for
eight months (while Ms. Granville visited her neurologist only once after her
hospitalization) and two courses of physical therapy. Although Respondent made valid
factual distinctions, he did not provide any real explanation (other than having reviewed
3 The Geschwindner petitioner also reported ongoing leg pain for up to two or more years after her
vaccination, however, Special Master Oler determined that there was insufficient record evidence to
evaluate that claim. Geschwindner, 2022 WL 777372 at *7.
6

Case 1:21-vv-02098-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/02/23 Page 7 of 7
the universe of proffers and settled cases) for how he quantified the amount of the
decrease to his proposed award of $52,500 in pain and suffering. Therefore, I do not find
that Respondent has fully defended the lower sum proposed.
While Petitioner’s GBS injury was mild overall, it still involved much of the treatment
that is routinely seen in GBS cases – including a several-day hospitalization and
treatment with IVIG infusions. Although Ms. Granville had a more significant initial
treatment course than what was seen in Geschwindner – with a longer hospitalization
and IVIG treatment, from which she suffered side effects – she enjoyed a faster and easier
path to full recovery after treatment. On balance, Ms. Granville’s pain and suffering was
substantially similar to the petitioner in Geschwindner, if slightly less overall. Accordingly,
based on the record as a whole, I find that $92,500.00 in compensation for actual/past
pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case.
V. Award for Past and Future Unreimbursed Expenses
Petitioner requests $3,508.66 in past unreimbursable expenses. Br. at 2.
Respondent does not dispute this sum, and therefore Petitioner is awarded it without
adjustment. Resp. at 2, footnote 1.
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$96,008.66 (representing $92,500.00 for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering and
$3,508.66 for past unreimbursed medical expenses) in the form of a check payable
to Petitioner, Dana Granville. This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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