VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00134
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00134
Petitioner: Norman Michaud
Filed: 2023-02-09
Decided: 2025-03-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-07
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 212578

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 9, 2023, Norman Michaud filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on November 7, 2020. Mr. Michaud, a 58-year-old self-employed plumber, stated that his symptoms began approximately one week after vaccination, progressing to pain and numbness in his calves and toes, difficulty walking, and numbness in his fingers. He was seen by his primary care provider, Dr. Jeffrey Wall, on November 30, 2020, who assessed him with bilateral calf pain and numbness in his toes. By December 2, 2020, his symptoms had progressed to bilateral leg weakness, requiring a cane, and poor balance. A neurological consult was ordered. On December 17, 2020, a neurosurgical evaluation did not reveal spinal cord compression, but concern for motor neuron disease was noted. On December 24, 2020, neurologist Dr. Hunter Sweet assessed Mr. Michaud with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) or GBS, noting it may be secondary to the influenza vaccination received approximately 3.5 weeks prior to symptom onset. Dr. Sweet ordered a lumbar puncture and other tests, and planned for intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment. Mr. Michaud was admitted to the hospital on December 28, 2020, for IVIG infusions and was discharged to inpatient rehabilitation on December 31, 2020, with a rolling walker. He completed his treatment and was discharged home on January 6, 2021. He continued with physical therapy and follow-up appointments with Dr. Sweet and later Dr. Jagivan Mehta. By July 2021, Dr. Mehta noted a "dramatic recovery," with Mr. Michaud working approximately 20-30 hours per week, though he still experienced difficulty climbing stairs and paresthesias. An EMG/NCS study on August 31, 2021, showed electrodiagnostic evidence of AIDP. By December 2021, Mr. Michaud reported no weakness, improved balance, and no longer required a cane or walker, though he continued to experience residual paresthesias and sensory ataxia. He returned to working full-time in early 2022 with some limitations due to fatigue and the physicality of his work. Mr. Michaud submitted two affidavits detailing the onset and progression of his GBS and its impact on his daily life and employment. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded entitlement to compensation, finding that Mr. Michaud satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table for GBS following a seasonal flu vaccination. The case proceeded to determine damages, as the parties could not resolve the issue. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the proceedings. On January 24, 2025, a hearing was held to determine damages. The Special Master awarded Mr. Michaud $212,578.22 in total compensation, comprising $138,000.00 for pain and suffering, $62,282.82 for lost earnings, and $11,295.40 for unreimbursable expenses. The Special Master found Mr. Michaud experienced a moderate case of GBS with a good recovery, comparing his case to precedent to arrive at the pain and suffering award. The parties were represented by Anthony Kirby Ferguson of Fales & Fales, P.A., for the Petitioner, and Rachelle Bishop and Felicia Langel of the U.S. Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Norman Michaud, age 58, received an influenza vaccine on November 7, 2020. He alleged Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) resulting from the vaccination. The respondent conceded entitlement, finding that Petitioner satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, which presumes causation if GBS onset occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause. Petitioner's symptoms began approximately one week post-vaccination, consistent with the Table's timeframe. Medical records documented his progression of symptoms, diagnosis of AIDP/GBS by neurologist Dr. Hunter Sweet, and treatment with IVIG. The respondent agreed that Petitioner timely filed his case, received the vaccine in the United States, and satisfied the statutory severity requirement of suffering residual effects for more than six months. The Special Master found Petitioner entitled to compensation. Damages were awarded on March 10, 2025, totaling $212,578.22, including $138,000.00 for pain and suffering, $62,282.82 for lost earnings, and $11,295.40 for unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner was represented by Anthony K. Ferguson, and Respondent by Rachelle Bishop and Felicia Langel. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the ruling.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00134-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/20/2023) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-134V
UNPUBLISHED
NORMAN MICHAUD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 20, 2023
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.
Anthony Kirby Ferguson, Fales & Fales, P.A., Lewiston, ME, for Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 9, 2023, Norman Michaud 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 that he suffered Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS),
resulting from an influenza (flu) vaccination he received on November 7, 2020. Petition at
1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccination was administered within the United
States, his symptoms persisted for more than six months, and neither he, nor any other
party, has ever filed any action or received compensation in the form of an award or
settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 4. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 2
On January 30, 2023, 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 found that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (‘QAI’),
which afford [P]etitioner 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 9. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner timely filed his
case, that he received the flu vaccine in the United States, and that he satisfies the
statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his
injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. Respondent concluded
that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. 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_22-vv-00134-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-10
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/30/2025) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-134V
NORMAN MICHAUD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 30, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Anthony K. Ferguson, Fales & Fales, P.A., Lewiston, ME, for Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.1
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES2
On February 9, 2022, Norman Michaud filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.3 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November 7, 2020. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters. Although entitlement was conceded, the parties could not resolve damages, and
1 Felicia Langel appeared for Respondent at the January 24, 2025 Motions Day hearing.
2 When this Decision was originally filed, I advised my intent to post it 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion
to redact certain information. This decision is being posted with Petitioner’s name redacted to reflect his
initials only. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made.
This Decision will be posted on the court’s website and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc with no further opportunity to move for
redaction.
3 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 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 2 of 9
therefore the matter was determined at a “Motions Day” proceeding held on January 24,
2025.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $212,578.22, comprised of $138,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, $62,282.82 in lost earnings, and $11,295.40 in unreimbursable expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
The case was activated on May 10, 2022 (ECF No. 11). Respondent conceded
entitlement, and entitlement was found in Petitioner’s favor on March 20, 2023. (ECF No.
30). However, the parties reached an impasse in their damages discussions and on
September 26, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record addressing
damages (ECF No. 40). Respondent filed his response on November 13, 2023 (ECF No.
41), and Petitioner replied on December 11, 2023. (ECF No. 42).
On January 3, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report confirming that they were
amenable to an expedited hearing. The Motions Day hearing occurred as scheduled on
January 24, 2025, and this written decision memorializes my oral ruling issued at the
conclusion of the hearing.4
II. Relevant Factual Evidence
A. Medical Records
Petitioner was fifty-eight years old and self-employed as a plumber at the time he
received the subject vaccination on November 7, 2020. Petitioner’s medical history is
significant for hypertension, an enlarged prostate, obesity, bilateral knee pain, lower back
pain, diverticulosis, urinary frequency and incontinence, stool incontinence, and transient
complaints of numbness in his hands at night. Ex. 4 at, 1-7, 21-24. Petitioner received the
subject flu vaccination from his primary care provider (“PCP”). Ex. 3.
On November 30, 2020, twenty-three days post-vaccination, Petitioner saw Dr.
Jeffrey Wall at his PCP’s office for complains of pain and numbness in his calves and
numbness in his toes, indicating that the symptoms started approximately one week prior
and approximately two weeks post vaccination. Ex. 4 at 27. He indicated he was having
difficultly going up stairs and ladders and also had numbness in his fingers. Id. Dr. Wall
4 That ruling will be set forth in the transcript from the hearing, which has not yet been filed but is fully
incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 3 of 9
assessed Petitioner with bilateral calf pain most consistent with muscle strain, numbness
of the toes likely from nerve compression in the feet, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Id. at
28.
Two days later on December 2, 2020, Petitioner returned to his PCP and was seen
by nurse Amy Ouelette for increased numbness in his hands and feet. Id. at 32. Petitioner
reported his symptoms were progressing and had bilateral leg weakness affecting his
gait, requiring the use of a cane to walk. Id. He also reported poor balance and was unable
to stand on his toes. Id. A physical examination revealed reduced motor strength and a
rigid, ataxic gait, and Nurse Ouelette’s impression was ataxia with concern that Petitioner
had a spinal cord compression or lesion, and she ordered spinal imaging and a
neurological consult. Id. The result of this MRI was evidence of degenerative disc disease
but nothing which would explain progressing symptoms. Ex. 11, at 3.
Petitioner saw nurse Heather Carpenter on December 17, 2020, for a
neurosurgical evaluation for a possible spinal compression or lesion. Ex. 13 at 1. She
reviewed Petitioner’s MRI results and told him that he did not have a spinal cord
compression or lesion but expressed concern his symptoms could be explained by a
motor neuron disease. Id. at 2. On December 18, 2020, Petitioner underwent a thoracic
MRI which also did not reveal a spinal cord compression. Ex. 11.
On December 24, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Hunter Sweet, a neurologist. Petitioner
reported the progression of his symptoms and that the sensory loss in his toes had
progressed to his knees, and he had difficulty walking, requiring the use of a walker. Ex.
5 at 1. On examination, Petitioner had absent deep tendon reflexes in his bilateral upper
and lower extremities, bilateral foot drop, and a wide-based gait, and was unable to stand
up from a seated position without the use of his arms. Id. at 4. Dr. Sweet’s assessment
was acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“AIDP”) or GBS, which he noted
“may be secondary to influenza vaccination which occurred about 3.5 weeks prior to
symptom onset.” Id. Dr. Sweet ordered a lumbar puncture, additional labs, and an MRI of
the cervical spine and the plan was for Petitioner to begin intravenous immunoglobulin
(“IVIG”) treatment once the lumbar puncture results returned. Id.
On December 28, 2020, Petitioner went to the emergency department of CMMC
for hospital admission to undergo five founds of IVIG after his lumbar puncture results
showed a mildly elevated cerebral spinal fluid protein level. Ex. 6 at 2-3. Due to the holiday
season, Petitioner was unable to receive outpatient infusions, but he was not deemed
admitted as an in-patient otherwise. Ex. 5 at 7. Petitioner remained at CMMC until
December 31, 2020. After two days, he reported feeling better, was steadier on his feet,
and was able to shower independently, and the following day his paresthesias had
improved to where the sensation was limited to the fingertips. Ex. 6 at 20. While admitted,
3

Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 4 of 9
lab results came back positive for neurosyphilis and although an infectious disease
specialist noted that Petitioner had no obvious contributing history and his clinical
presentation was not consistent with neurosyphilis, Petitioner was still placed on IV
penicillin for ten days. Id. at 13-14. Petitioner was discharged to inpatient rehabilitation at
CMMC on December 31, 2020. He remained in inpatient rehab to finish his IVIG and
penicillin infusions before being discharged on January 6, 2021, with a rolling walker. Id.
at 32-36; Ex. 7 at 2-10. Petitioner was told he could resume normal activities as he was
able. Id. at 21-23.
On January 8, 2021, Petitioner saw Dr. Sweet for a neurological follow-up. He
reported he still had some tingling in his arms when active with resolution upon rest, that
he was able to walk inside his home without assistance, and he was able to go up stairs
one at a time although he experienced “uncomfortable dysesthesias” when he put
pressure on his feet. Ex. 5 at 7.
On January 22, 2021, Petitioner began physical therapy (“PT”). Ex. 8. Between
January 22, 2021, and February 26, 2021, Petitioner attended ten PT sessions. Id. at 10-
28. Petitioner changed PT providers on March 3, 2021, noting at an initial evaluation that
his main issues were balance and a “spongey” feeling in his feet. Petitioner completed an
additional 21 PT sessions between March 3, 2021, and June 2, 2021. Ex. 9 at 8-72.
On July 13, 2021, Petitioner saw Dr. Jagivan Mehta, a neurologist, for a six-month
follow-up for his GBS. Ex. 5 at 12. Dr. Mehta noted that Petitioner had made a “dramatic
recovery” and had returned to working approximately 20-30 hour work weeks. Id.
Petitioner still complained of difficulty climbing stairs, paresthesias, and a “rubbery”
feeling in the bottom of his feet. Dr. Mehta ordered an electromyography/nerve conduction
study (“EMG/NCS”) and advised Petitioner to follow-up in three months.
On August 31, 2021, Petitioner saw Dr. Cynthia Richards, a neurologist, for
EMG/NCS testing. The study yielded abnormal results, showing electrodiagnostic
evidence of AIDP. Ex. 5 at 16. Petitioner had an annual exam with his PCP on November
12, 2021, during which he reported that he had mostly recovered but still was not working
full-time due to fatigue. Ex. 4 at 42.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Mehta on December 10, 2021, and was informed of the
results of his EMG/NCS study. He continued to report residual paresthesias and the
rubbery sensation in his feet, but no weakness and also noted his balance was better and
he no longer required the use of a cane or walker to support ambulation. Ex. 5 at 22. Dr.
Mehta advised Petitioner to continue with PT and use a cane when necessary because
he had developed sensory ataxia from lost proprioception due to neuropathy. Id. at 25.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 5 of 9
Petitioner underwent a noninvasive Rezum procedure for his enlarged prostate on
June 17, 2022, with his PCP. At this time, it was noted that Petitioner still had some
decreased sensation in his feet. Ex. 31.
B. Declarations
Petitioner submitted two signed affidavits in support of his claim. Exs. 2, 35. The
first affidavit, executed on February 9, 2022, and filed that same date along with his
petition and medical records, speaks to the course of petitioner’s GBS onset and
symptoms. See generally Ex. 2.
The second affidavit, executed on September 26, 2023 and filed into the record
that same day, recounts the impact of Petitioner’s GBS on his daily life and employment.
Petitioner recounts that prior to his GBS, he was almost always the sole employee of his
plumbing and heating company. Ex. 35 ¶ 4. He describes how due to his GBS, he was
unable to work from December 2020 to March 12, 2021, his first day back working. Id. ¶
6. He further describes that his lingering GBS symptoms initially limited the number of
hours he could work, and that for the summer of 2021 he had to hire an additional
employee that he wouldn’t have done in the absence of his GBS symptoms due to his
difficulty in carrying tools and parts and carrying things up and down stairs. Id. ¶ 7.
Petitioner notes that at some point in early 2022, he was able to return to work full-time
with some limitations, such as having to turn down certain jobs due to the physicality of
the work and being unable to work more than three consecutive days due to fatigue. Id.
¶¶ 8-9.
Describing the impact his GBS had on his personal life, Petitioner notes that
between December 3, 2020, and January 23, 2021, he was unable to drive his car and
had difficulty walking distances, and that such symptoms persist, to the point where he
gets more fatigued during the day and finds it increasingly difficult to walk distances. Id.
¶¶ 10-11. He further describes how his girlfriend had to move into his house to care for
him for most of December until his hospitalization, and how he was unable to care for his
elderly father for December 2020 and January 2021. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.
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 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 &
5

Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 6 of 9
Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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.5 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Human 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).
IV. The Parties’ Arguments
The sole issue in dispute is determining an appropriate award for Petitioner’s past
pain and suffering damages. Petitioner requests $180,000.00, and in support cites the
following cases: Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL
5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 20, 2018) (awarding $180,000.00); Dillenbeck v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 29,
2019) (awarding $170,000.00); Devlin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-191V,
2020 WL 5512505 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020) (awarding $180,000.00); and
McCray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-277V, 2021 WL 4618549 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2021) (awarding $180,000.00).
5 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
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 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 7 of 9
Petitioner argues that the instant case is similar to those offered as comparables,
given common factors such as Petitioner’s inability to work for several months, the
necessity of hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation and/or physical therapy, and on-
going GBS sequelae that continue to affect Petitioner’s daily living to this day. Mot. at 13.
Respondent has countered with $117,500.00 for pain and suffering. Respondent
notes that Petitioner experienced a moderate course of GBS with a dramatic recovery;
that Petitioner’s hospitalization for IVIG treatment was limited, and reflected only the
unavailability of outpatient treatment rather than the severity of his GBS at that time; and
that Petitioner has not required ongoing medication or extensive other treatment to
manage his lingering GBS symptoms. Resp. at 10-12. Respondent also argues that
Petitioner relies upon cases are distinguishable, because those individuals all
experienced a more severe form of GBS in some way (e.g., longer hospitalization, worse
pain, and a longer recovery). Id. at 12. Respondent has offered the following cases as
comparable to his proposed damages amount: Sand v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1104V, 2021 WL 4704665 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2021) (awarding
$130,000.00); Castellanos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1710V, 2022 WL
1482497 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2022) (awarding $125,000.00); and Shankar v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum Servs., No. 19-138V, 2022 WL 2196407 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
5, 2022) (awarding $135,000.00).
V. Appropriate Compensation in this Case
A. Pain and Suffering
In arriving at a pain and suffering award, I review the facts and circumstances of
the petitioner before me, in the context of other cases and precedent. GBS is a particularly
concerning and frightening condition, and the pain and suffering award should reflect that.
Reasoned decisions, rather than cases resolved on proffer, provide the best comparable
cases for arriving at an award when the parties are unable to resolve damages through
negotiations. But ultimately the facts of the case at issue are the most significant factor.
Here, Mr. Michaud experienced a moderate case of GBS. Although he required
hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation, the stay was not as protracted as in more
severe presentations of GBS, and involved largely IVIG treatment. Petitioner was
prescribed gabapentin and Medrol Dosepak to manage his symptoms prior to his
hospitalization, but the records indicate that he only required one course of each of these,
with no prescription pain medication needed following the completion of his IVIG
treatment. Petitioner also appears to have made a very good recovery – by February
2021 he was able to resume caring for his elderly father, by March 2021 he was able to
return to working on a part-time basis, and by early 2022 he was able to resume working
full-time, albeit with some modifications based on his lingering symptoms.
Compared to the cases cited to by Petitioner, the overall course of Petitioner’s
GBS was less severe. For example, the petitioner in Dillenbeck required 14 days of
7

Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 8 of 9
hospitalization followed by six days of inpatient rehabilitation, plus live-in care from three
adults for approximately five to six months thereafter. Dillenbeck, 2019 WL 4072069, at
*2-4. Additionally, upon returning to work that petitioner was unable to perform the duties
of her prior job and had to take a different, less physically taxing job that also had lower
wages. Id. The McCray petitioner required 12 days of hospitalization followed by 21 days
of inpatient rehabilitative care, and 31 days of home-based PT and OT services, along
with the use of prescription pain medication following her hospitalization for severe
neuropathic pain. McCray, 2021 WL 4618549, at *2. Additionally, the onset of Petitioner’s
symptoms in the instant case appears to have been more gradual, contrasted to the acute
presentation of symptoms in these cases.
Respondent’s cited cases prove to be more applicable in this case. All involve
petitioners who required comparable periods of hospitalization and physical therapy, and
who have largely been able to return to a level of activity close to what they experienced
prior to the onset of their GBS. For example, in Shankar it was noted that approximately
two months after vaccination, the petitioner had almost returned to her baseline function
and cognitive status and her lingering symptoms were centered on muscular endurance
and fatigue. Shankar, 2022 WL 2196407, at *2-3.
However, Respondent’s proposed sum is not fully justified, even on the basis of
better comparable cases. Indeed, as Respondent notes in his Response, “no reasoned
decision is on par with an award of $117,500.00.” Resp. at 15. Respondent attempts to
justify this number nevertheless, arguing that the lack of required hospitalization is a
compelling reason for a lower sum, as in Sand. Id. But the Sand petitioner received
$130,000.00 in pain and suffering, more than Respondent proposes. Thus, there appears
to be no strong reasoning for so low of an award when, as here, Petitioner did require
some kind of hospitalization for treatment of his GBS, plus subsequent inpatient recovery.
Based upon the facts of this case and the reasoning contained in this decision as
well as my oral ruling at the January 24, 2025, hearing, I find that Petitioner should be
awarded $138,000.00 for his past pain and suffering.
B. Unreimbursable Expenses and Lost Wages
The parties agree that Petitioner should be reimbursed $11,295.40 for past
unreimbursed expenses, and $63,282.82 for lost wages. Mot. at 14; Resp. at 16.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $138,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.6 I also find that Petitioner
6 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 & Human Servs., No. 96-
8

Case 1:22-vv-00134-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/10/25 Page 9 of 9
is entitled to $11,295.40 in actual unreimbursable expenses and $63,282.82 for lost
wages.
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment in the amount of
$212,578.22 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA
account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
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
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
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.
9