VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02164
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02164
Petitioner: Lori Black
Filed: 2021-11-12
Decided: 2024-07-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-17
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 141218

AI-assisted case summary:
Lori Black filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 17, 2018. The respondent conceded that Ms. Black was entitled to compensation, as her condition met the criteria for a Table injury. The case proceeded to a damages determination. Ms. Black received the flu vaccine on November 17, 2018. Approximately thirteen days later, she reported muscle and joint discomfort, reduced strength, and trouble walking. She was hospitalized, underwent diagnostic tests including a lumbar puncture and MRI, and received IVIg therapy. A neurologist diagnosed her with inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy (AIDP), which was confirmed by an EMG/NCS study. She was discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility and later attended physical therapy. While her condition improved significantly, she continued to experience some fatigue and gait issues for approximately two years. The parties disagreed on the appropriate award for pain and suffering and unreimbursed medical expenses. The court awarded Ms. Black $140,000.00 for pain and suffering, $1,087.37 for unreimbursed medical expenses, and $130.92 for travel expenses, totaling $141,218.29. This award reflects a mild-to-moderate case of GBS with a relatively prompt diagnosis and treatment, leading to a good recovery but with some lingering symptoms.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02164-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-10-18
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/06/2022) regarding 28 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2164V
UNPUBLISHED
LORI BLACK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 6, 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.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On November 12, 2021, Lori Black 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 an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered to her on November 17, 2018.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On September 6, 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 “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”)
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-02164-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 2
for a Table claim of GBS following receipt of a flu vaccine”. Id. at 9 (citing 42 C.F.R. § §
100.3(a)(XIV)(D), 100.3(c)(15). Respondent further agrees that this case was timely filed,
that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that Petitioner satisfied the
statutory severity requirement. Id. at 9-10. Respondent also notes that Petitioner has
averred that “‘no civil actions have been filed, nor [has she] received or collected an award
or settlement of a civil action for damages for this vaccine related injury.” Id. at 10 (citing
Pet. Ex. 8 at 1).
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-02164-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-19
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/11/2024) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 1 of 7
Corrected
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2164V
UNPUBLISHED
LORI BLACK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 11, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Damages;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-
Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 12, 2021, Lori Black 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”)
caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 17, 2018. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters
(the “SPU”), and entitlement was found in the Petitioner’s favor on September 6, 2022.
The parties reached on impasse on the appropriate award for pain and suffering, and the
matter was submitted for an SPU “Motions Day” hearing.
1 Because this unpublished fact 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 fact 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-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons described below, I award $140,000.00 in compensation for actual
pain and suffering, plus $1,087.37 for unreimbursed medical expenses, and $130.92 for
travel expenses.
I. Medical Records
Ms. Black received a flu vaccine on November 17, 2018. Ex. 1 at 9. Approximately
thirteen days later, Petitioner reported muscle and joint discomfort, reduced strength, and
trouble walking. Ex. 5 at 8, 10. She was admitted to the hospital and had a lumbar
puncture, an MRI, and started IVIg therapy on November 30, 2018. Id. at 542, 582. A
consultation with a neurologist on December 2, 2018 resulted in a diagnosis of
inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy (“AIDP”) (Ex. 6 at 583), which was
confirmed by an EMG/NCS study on December 5, 2018. Id. at 527-29.
Petitioner was discharged following a five-day course of IVIg to an inpatient
rehabilitation facility on December 6, 2018, where she stayed for eight days. Ex. 6 at 662,
285-86. Following that, Petitioner had two physical therapy sessions. Id. at 134-38, 153.
On January 4, 2019, Petitioner saw neurologist Dr. Fahey and reported she was
65-70% improved. Ex. 6 at 116, 118. She saw her neurologist again on February 4, 2019,
and stated she was 90-95% improved at that time but still had paresthesia in her lower
extremities. Id. at 92. One month later, Petitioner reported ongoing numbness and pain
in extremities, however Dr. Fahey noted the location and type of pain were “distinctly
unusual for GBS.” Id. at 83.
In the following months, Petitioner reported no significant change in her condition
and requested a handicapped parking tag. Ex. 6 at 68. She also continued to report
discomfort in her toes and continued use of a walker. Id. at 63-64. Petitioner continued to
reported ongoing foot pain and discomfort until at least January 13, 2021, however a
podiatrist noted this was “most likely due to degenerative/arthritic changes.” Ex. 2 at 19-
21.
II. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of her petition describing her course of
treatment and how GBS impacted her life. Ex. 7.
III. Damages
Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of damages on March 15, 2023, seeking
$155,000.00 for pain and suffering, $1,747.28 for medical expenses, and $130.92 for
2

Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 3 of 7
medical mileage. Petitioner’s Memorandum in Support of Damages (“Pet. Br.”), ECF No.
37. Respondent reacted with his own brief on May 15, 2023, arguing that $87,500.00 is
an appropriate amount for pain and suffering, and $1,087.37 for unreimbursed expenses,
and $40.08 for mileage. Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Res. Br.”), ECF No. 38.
IV. 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).
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.3 Hodges v. Sec’y of
3 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
3

Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 4 of 7
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 (between zero and the $250,000.00 cap), that practice was cast into doubt by
the Court several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579
(Fed. Cl. 2013). 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,
pain and suffering should be assessed 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 within a spectrum that ends at the cap. While Graves does not control
the process used herein to calculate pain and suffering, it stands as wise counsel.
V. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Ms. Black was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact the
awareness of her injury. 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 arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing.
Petitioner cites to a number of damages decisions involving GBS injuries that
resulted in $135,000.00 - $180,000.00 awards.4 Pet. Br. at 13-14. Petitioner notes that
Ms. Black’s treatment included a six-day course of hospitalization, a lumbar puncture,
MRIs, an EMG/NCS study, a course of IVIg treatment, eight day inpatient rehabilitation
stay, physical therapy, and ambulatory assistance, and three years of lasting symptoms.
Pet. Br. at 22-26.
Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were
reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
4 In particular, Petitioner cited to Shankar v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 19-1382V, 2022 WL 2196407 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. May 5, 2022) (awarding $135,000 for pain and suffering); Robinson v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 18-
88V, 2020 WL 5820967 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2020) (awarding $180,000 for pain and suffering);
Francesco v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 18-1622V, 2020 WL 6706654 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 15, 2020) awarding
$165,000 for pain and suffering); and Clemens v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 19-1547V, 2022 WL 2288515 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 17, 2022) (awarding $180,000 for pain and suffering).
4

Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 5 of 7
Respondent argues that the severity of Ms. Black’s GBS was less than what is
evident from such other prior cases. Res. Br. at 14-16. Petitioner’s pain levels were
relatively mild, her treatment did not involve complications, she attended very little out-
patient physical therapy, and her condition improved rapidly. attended any in-patient
rehabilitation, and had a relatively short period of therapy. Id. at 11-14.
After reviewing the record in this case, the evidence best supports the conclusion
that Ms. Black experienced a mild-to-moderate case of GBS. She was fortunate to receive
a relatively prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment with IVIg. Her in-patient care
occurred over two weeks and almost no subsequent physical therapy. Ms. Black made
quick initial progress over the first three months with minimal physical therapy, but
continued to experience some fatigue and gait issues for two years
Respondent’s proposed award of $87,500.00 does not give sufficient credence to
the seriousness of GBS as a general matter, or to the facts of this specific case. Petitioner
has better substantiated her demand than Respondent. And the award amount she seeks
reasonably balances the seriousness of GBS against her overall course. However, the
present facts are not directly comparable to the damages determinations cited by
Petitioner, particularly in the cases cited wherein pain and suffering awards were
$180,000.00. In those cases, the injured party experienced an identifiable effect on their
career, life, or daily living, which is harder to show here due to Ms. Black’s short course
of treatment and relatively swift recovery. See, e.g. Dillenbeck 2019 WL 4072069, at *14;
Devlin, 2020 WL 5512505 at *3; Francesco, 2020 WL 6705564 at *4; W.B., 2020 WL
5509686 at *5.
Ms. Black’s situation is most similar to the petitioner in Weil v. Sec'y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 21-0831V, 2023 WL 1778281 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 6, 2021)
(awarding $140,000 for pain and suffering). In Weil, the petitioner was 61 years old, was
treated fairly soon after vaccination, and was admitted for five days with an additional 20
day in-patient rehabilitation stay and one month of physical therapy. That petitioner had
a good recovery within ten weeks, but reported lingering issues for eight months. In
contrast, Ms. Black had less in-patient care and physical therapy, but had lingering gait
issues resulting in long-term use of a walker and handicap parking.
Balancing the severity of a GBS injury and the moderate disease course and
treatment requirements demonstrated by this record, and considering the arguments
presented by both parties and a review of the cited cases, I find that $140,000.00 in
compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case.
5

Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 6 of 7
VI. Unreimbursed Out-Of-Pocket Expenses
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 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, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23.
Petitioner seeks $1,747.28 for expenses related to her injury. Pet. Br. at 21.
Respondent agrees to $1,087.37 of this amount, but contests expenses that he argues
are unrelated to Petitioner’s GBS - in particular the cost of a replacement power recliner
purchased on February 21, 2021. Id., Res. Br. at 17-18. Petitioner claims that the
replacement chair was necessary because she could not climb stairs and needed it to
sleep. Pet. Br. at 21-22. However, as Respondent notes, Petitioner’s symptoms had
improved significantly prior to the purchase, and she reportedly could get anywhere she
needed to be by June 15, 2020. Res. Br. at 17-18.
I agree with Respondent that the purchase of the replacement chair does not seem
to be related to Petitioner’s injury, especially because it was purchased after she had
shown significant improvement. Therefore, based on the above, I award only $1,087.37
for past unreimbursed expenses.
Petitioner also seeks $130.92 for related travel expenses, in particular mileage
associated with her care, which was calculated using the business rate. Pet. Br. at 20.
Respondent argues that the appropriate calculation should use the “medical rate”, which
would result in an award of $40.08. Res. Br. at 20-21. As set forth in my recent decision,
Gibson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0243V, 2022 WL 17820891, at *12 (Fed.
Cl. Nov. 16, 2022), however, it has been my determination that the higher business rate
is properly applied in the context of Vaccine Act cases. Therefore, based on the above, I
award $130.92 for Petitioner’s travel expenses.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $141,218.29 (representing
$140,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $1,087.37 for unreimbursed medical
expenses, and $130.92 for travel expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner.
6

Case 1:21-vv-02164-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/19/24 Page 7 of 7
This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be
available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in
accordance with this Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 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.
7