VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00285
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00285
Petitioner: Joseph Janni
Filed: 2022-03-11
Decided: 2025-07-17
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-25
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 225000

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 11, 2022, Diane Janni filed a petition on behalf of her deceased husband, Joseph Janni, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 25, 2019. Mr. Janni died on October 30, 2019, from GBS. The petition was filed on March 11, 2022. The respondent conceded entitlement to compensation for Mr. Janni's GBS injury, which is a Table injury, but denied the death benefit claim as untimely filed. The Special Master agreed that the death benefit claim was untimely, as it was filed more than 28 months after Mr. Janni's death, exceeding the 24-month limit. However, the claim for GBS injury was timely. The Special Master awarded Mr. Janni's estate $225,000.00 for his pain and suffering. Mr. Janni, an 80-year-old retired man, experienced severe GBS symptoms including respiratory failure, inability to eat, sepsis, and bedsores during his 22-day hospitalization before his death. The award reflects the severity and duration of his suffering, though it does not include the death benefit due to the late filing. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent counsel was Ryan Daniel Pyles. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that Joseph Janni, age 80, suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 25, 2019, which led to his death on October 30, 2019. Respondent conceded entitlement for the GBS injury, which is a Table injury, satisfying the criteria for presumed causation under the Vaccine Injury Table (onset between 3-42 days after vaccination with no apparent alternative cause). The death benefit claim was dismissed as untimely filed, exceeding the 24-month limit. The Special Master awarded $225,000.00 for Mr. Janni's actual pain and suffering. The award considered the severity and duration of his GBS, including respiratory failure, inability to eat, sepsis, and bedsores during a 22-day hospitalization. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on July 17, 2025. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent counsel was Ryan Daniel Pyles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00285-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-05-22
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/19/2023) regarding 17 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 19 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-285V
UNPUBLISHED
DIANE JANNI, as Personal Chief Special Master Corcoran
Representative Of the Estate of
JOSEPH JANNI, Filed: April 19, 2023
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Dismissal of
Death Benefit Claim; Concession;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT and DISMISSAL OF DEATH BENEFIT CLAIM1
On March 11, 2022, Diane Janni filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”) on behalf of decedent Joseph Janni. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Janni
suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered to him on September 25, 2019, which later resulted in his death on October
30, 2019. Petition at ¶ 8. Petitioner further alleges that Mr. Janni suffered the residual
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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 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-00285-UNJ Document 19 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 3
effects of his injury until his death, and that there has been no prior award or settlement
of a civil action on Mr. Janni’s behalf as a result of his injury. Petition at ¶¶ 7,9. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On December 1, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case for Mr. Janni’s vaccine-
related GBS injury, but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the statutory death benefit. ECF
No. 14 at 1. Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s Rule 4 on March 15, 2023. ECF
No. 16. Petitioner defers to me whether her claim for the death benefit under the Act
should be dismissed. Id. According, this matter is ripe for my resolution.
The Vaccine Act requires that “if a death occurred as a result of the administration
of . . . a vaccine, no petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for such
death after the expiration of 24 months from the date of death . . . .” Section 16(a)(3)
(emphasis added). Mr. Janni died on October 30, 2019. Ex. 5. The Petition was filed,
however, on March 11, 2022, more than 28 months after Mr. Janni’s death. ECF No. 1.
And Petitioner has otherwise established no basis for equitable tolling of the limitations
period. Therefore, I find that Petitioner’s claim for the death benefit of $250,000.00
under Section 15(a)(2) must be dismissed as untimely filed.
In regard to Petitioner’s claim for Mr. Janni’s GBS injury, as Respondent point out,
the Federal Circuit has held that the Vaccine Act’s relevant limitations provisions are
separately assessed. ECF NO. 14 at 3 (citing Griglock v. Secy. of Health and Hum. Servs.,
687 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Even though a death-related claim is untimely, I
find that Petitioner’s claim for Mr. Janni’s GBS injury was timely filed (as Respondent
concedes), since it was initiated within “36 months after the occurrence of the first
symptom or manifestation of onset” of his GBS – or before late September 2022 (the
earliest time for potential onset). Section 16(a)(2).
In addition, regarding the merit of Petitioner’s Table Injury claim for Mr. Janni’s
GBS injury, Respondent agrees
[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table
(Table) and the 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.
ECF No. 14 at 3-4 (citing Section 14(a)(XIV)(D), (c)(15)). Respondent further agrees that
Petitioner has satisfied the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, Section 11(c)(1(D), as he
2

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 19 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 3
underwent a surgical intervention, specifically a gastrostomy, while he was hospitalized.
Id. at 4.
In view of Respondent’s position, and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation for Mr. Janni’s GBS injury. Petitioner’s claim
for the death benefit of $250,000.00 associated with Mr. Janni’s death, §15(a)(2), is
dismissed as untimely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00285-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-17
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/16/2025) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-285V
DIANE JANNI, as Personal Chief Special Master Corcoran
Representative Of the Estate of
JOSEPH JANNI, Filed: June 16, 2025
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 11, 2022, Diane Janni filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”) on behalf of her deceased husband, Joseph Janni. Petitioner alleges that
Mr. Janni suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine administered to him on September 25, 2019, which later resulted in his death on
October 30, 2019. Petition at ¶ 8. I determined that Petitioner was entitled to
compensation for Mr. Janni’s GBS injury, but the parties were unable to resolve damages
on their own, so I ordered briefing on the matter.
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 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 2 of 12
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $225,000.00 for Mr. Janni’s actual pain and suffering.
I. Relevant Procedural History
As noted above, this case was initiated in March 2022. On December 1, 2022,
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report conceding entitlement, but denying that Petitioner
should receive the statutory death benefit, since such a claim had not been submitted in
a timely basis. ECF No. 14 at 1. Petitioner deferred to my resolution the question
regarding whether her claim for the death benefit under the Act should be dismissed. ECF
No. 16. I ruled in Petitioner’s favor on the conceded GBS injury claim, but dismissed
Petitioner’s claim for the death benefit of $250,000.00 associated with Mr. Janni’s death
(under Section 15(a)(2) of the Vaccine Act) as untimely filed.3 ECF No. 17.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in informal discussions to resolve damages, but
were unable to do so, and I set deadlines for the filing of briefs addressing an appropriate
award of compensation. ECF No. 26. On May 20, 2024, Petitioner filed a Brief on
Damages requesting an award of $250,000.00 for Mr. Janni’s pain and suffering as a
result of his GBS. ECF No. 28. On July 5, 2024, Respondent filed a response Brief on
Damages recommending that Petitioner should be awarded the lesser amount of
$125,000.00. ECF No. 29.
Petitioner filed a Reply on July 22, 2024, and I subsequently scheduled this matter
for a “Motions’ Day” expedited hearing. ECF Nos. 32-34; Hearing Order (Non-PDF) filed
May 12, 2025. The Motions’ Day hearing took place on May 30, 2025. Minute Entry dated
May 30, 2025.4 After hearing argument, I made an oral damages determination. This
Decision memorializes that determination.
II. 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
3 The Vaccine Act requires that “if a death occurred as a result of the administration of . . . a vaccine, no
petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for such death after the expiration of 24 months
from the date of death . . . .” Section 16(a)(3) (emphasis added). Mr. Janni died on October 30, 2019. Ex.
5. The Petition was filed, however, on March 11, 2022, more than 28 months after Mr. Janni’s death. ECF
No. 1. And Petitioner had otherwise established no basis for equitable tolling of the limitations period.
4 Michael Milmoe appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Ryan Pyles appeared on behalf of Respondent.
The transcript of the May 30, 2025 Hearing in this case was not filed as of the date of this Decision, but my
oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 3 of 12
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. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of
vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
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 Court of Federal
Claims decision 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 590.
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 595. Under this approach, the statutory cap merely
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
3

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 4 of 12
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards – and properly emphasizes the importance in each case of basing
damages on the specific injured party’s circumstances.
III. Prior SPU Compensation of GBS Pain and Suffering5
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU Flu/ GBS Cases
Flu/GBS cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of January 1, 2025, since SPU’s inception ten years ago, 897 GBS cases have been
resolved. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases (852), with the
remaining 45 cases dismissed.
The data for all categories of theses damages decisions reflect the expected
differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated6
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 56 412 20 364
Lowest $96,008.66 $9,050.40 $20,000.00 $3,098.64
1st Quartile $156,760.64 $125,000.00 $128,700.00 $100,000.00
Median $171,082.15 $162,940.13 $224,397.27 $150,000.00
3rd Quartile $186,457.51 $244,193.98 $380,028.33 $221,250.00
Largest $244,390.18 $2,282,465.84 $985,000.00 $1,200,000.00
B. Adjudication of GBS-Associated Pain and Suffering
Only a small minority of cases have involved a special master’s adjudication of
damages issues. The written decisions setting forth such determinations provide the most
reliable guidance in deciding what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.7
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, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the
majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
6 One award was for an annuity only, the exact amount which was not determined at the time of judgment.
7 Of course, even though all independently-settled damages issues (whether by stipulation/settlement or
proffer) must still be approved by a special master, such determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number of such cases,
4

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 5 of 12
As of January 1, 2025, in nearly every occasion that SPU has had to resolve the
appropriate award for GBS pain and suffering, over $100,000.00 has been awarded (with
a lower sum, lower sum, $92,500.00, only awarded once). The remaining fifty-five (55)
awards far exceeded $100,000.00. The first-quartile value is $153,750.00. The median is
$167,500.00. The third-quartile value is $178,500.00. The largest award was
$197,500.00.
These decisions are informed by what is known about GBS, including its
description as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”). Pursuant to the Table,
vaccine causation is presumed for GBS with an onset 3 – 42 days (not less than 3 days,
and not more than 42 days) after receipt of a seasonal flu vaccine. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(a)(XIV)(D). The Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) explain:
GBS is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that encompasses a
spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes… The interval between the
first appearance of symptoms and the nadir of weakness is between 12
hours and 28 days. This is followed in all subtypes by a clinical plateau with
stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without
significant relapse. Death may occur without a clinical plateau. Treatment-
related fluctuations in all subtypes of GBS can occur within 9 weeks of GBS
symptom onset, and recurrence of symptoms after this timeframe would not
be consistent with GBS.
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(I) (2017). The three most common subtypes are acute
inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“AIDP”); acute motor axonal neuropathy
(“AMAN”); and acute motor and sensory neuropathy (“AMSAN”). Id. The onset of each is
marked by “bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes
in weak limbs.” Id. at (c)(15)(II). The fourth subtype – Fisher syndrome or Miller-Fisher
syndrome – has a different onset of “bilateral ophthalmoparesis; bilateral reduced or
absent tendon reflexes; [and] ataxia.” Id. at (c)(15)(III).8
these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in
comparable cases.” Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed
upon by the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
8 See also National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table – Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 Fed. Reg. 45132, at 45144 – 45 (July 29, 2015) (proposing addition of Table
flu/GBS claims – explaining GBS is “an acute paralysis caused by dysfunction in the peripheral nervous
system [that…] may manifest with weakness, abnormal sensations, and/or abnormality in the autonomic
(involuntary) nervous system,” and that death, when it occurs, is most often related to respiratory failure).
5

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 6 of 12
A consistent starting consideration is 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.”9 Gross v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 11,
2021); see also, e.g., Castellanos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1710V, 2022
WL 1482497, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2022) (emphasizing recognition of “the
seriousness of GBS as a general matter,” in awarding a six-figure sum); Voeller v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1526V, 2023 WL 5019830, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 6, 2023) (noting GBS’s “frightening” nature).
But of course, not every GBS case is equally severe. Further details of the initial
medical course are considered – including any mistake or delay in diagnosing GBS; any
in-patient hospitalization and/or in-patient rehabilitation (and the duration of any such
stays); diagnostic procedures (e.g., bloodwork, lumbar punctures, electrodiagnostic
studies, imaging); the severity of symptoms at their nadir (e.g., involving incontinence or
respiratory failure); the extent and effectiveness of treatment (e.g., IVIg, plasmapheresis,
pain medications); other interventions (e.g., feeding tubes, breathing tubes,
catheterization); and any complications (e.g., sepsis during hospitalization).
Also relevant is the long-term course – as evidenced by out-patient therapies,
neurology evaluations, and other medical appointments concerning GBS; the results of
repeat electrodiagnostic studies and other relevant tests; medical providers’ assessments
of the degree of recovery achieved; ongoing reliance on assistive devices and
medications; and relevant treatment gaps. Previous opinions have recognized that “a
substantial recovery does not mean that [an individual] has fully recovered from his GBS
and has no ongoing sequelae. It is common for petitioners to experience ongoing
symptoms of GBS, such as numbness and fatigue, even with a good recovery.” Elenteny
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1972V, 2023 WL 2447498, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 10, 2023). But symptoms of that nature are typically folded into a “typical” past
pain and suffering award, and will not justify a future component. See, e.g., id.; Miller v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1559V, 2023 WL 2474322, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 10, 2023).
“The mere fact that a claimant had pre-vaccination comorbidities does not per se
diminish the impact of [the vaccine injury] on his life – especially one as alarming and
potentially life-altering as GBS – and therefore is not alone reason for a lower award.”
Bircheat v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1088V, 2021 WL 3026880, at *4 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2021). However, a special master is statutorily required to
9 Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) is another Table injury. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a),
(c)(10).
6

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 7 of 12
consider to what extent a petitioner’s pain and suffering is truly “from the vaccine-related
injury,” Section 15(a)(4) (emphasis added), and not from any unrelated preexisting or
subsequently-developed medical issues. See, e.g., Bircheat, 2021 WL 3026880, at *4;
Gross, 2021 WL 2666685, at *5. Also worthy of consideration is the injury’s impact on a
petitioner’s personal circumstances and professional life (whether or not lost wages are
directly claimed).
All of these facts are primarily gleaned from the medical records – although sworn
statements and/or other evidence may also be considered, especially if they supplement,
and do not contradict, the facts reflected in the medical records.
IV. Overview of the Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner argues that the legal standard for a pain and suffering award at the top
of the Act’s “cap” is supported by decisions in other GBS cases and consistent with the
remedial purposes of the Act. ECF No. 28 at 11-24. She contends that “absent the
$250,000.00 cap, this case would call for an overall award well in excess of $250,000.”
(quoting Brustuen v. Sec'y of Health & Hum Servs., No. 90-3936V, 1992 WL 167284, at
2 (Fed. Cl. June 25, 1992)) and that
[g]iven all that [Mr. Janni] went through in the weeks leading up to his death,
[P]etitioner’s award for pain and suffering in state court would likely far
exceed the amount capped by statute. Given the Act’s remedial purpose,
and its requirement that awards be made in the spirit of generosity,
[P]etitioner is entitled to a high award for past pain and suffering.
Id. at 24.
Respondent, in contrast, asserts that his proposed award is better supported by
the relevant legal standard, and Program case law, specifically arguing
[i]f [P]etitioner had timely filed her claim for purposes of the Vaccine Act’s
death benefit, then [R]espondent would be proffering a combined
$375,000.00, which would include some measure of compensation to the
survivors of the estate. And while Mr. Janni’s course was very severe, the
stark reality is that his pain and suffering lasted for twenty-two days. An
award of $125,000.00 – or roughly $5,600 per day – fully recognizes that
fact.
ECF No. 29 at 8.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 8 of 12
V. Appropriate Compensation for Mr. Janni’s Pain and Suffering
As a preliminary matter, I observe that the award for pain and suffering in this case
is to provide compensation for the vaccinee (Mr. Janni) only, based on his demonstrated
“actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
injury.” Section 15(a)(4). Thus, even though it cannot be disputed that Petitioner and her
greater family suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of his death, I cannot take
into account their own experiences in calculating the award.
Of course, had Petitioner filed her claim within 24 months of Mr. Janni’s death, she
would have been entitled to a separate and additional award “death benefit award” under
the Act of $250,000.00 – automatically, and hence without any evidentiary fact-finding or
weighing required. Section 15(a)(2) (Compensation under the Program includes: “[i]n the
event of a vaccine-related death, an award of $250,000 for the estate of the deceased.”).
But this did not occur.
As in all Vaccine Act cases, I analyze principally the severity and duration of Mr.
Janni’s injury in determining an appropriate award for his pain and suffering.10 In
performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including the medical
records, affidavits or declarations, photographic evidence, 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.
However, I ultimately base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
Here the records shows that Mr. Janni, an 80-year-old retired husband and father,
received a flu vaccine at Costco Pharmacy on September 25, 2019. Ex. 1 at 1. Mr. Janni
began experiencing bilateral hand numbness, as well as elevated blood pressure, on
October 7, 2019, and when the symptoms persisted the next day (October 8, 2019) he
went to see his primary care physician. Ex. 3 at 105; Ex. 7 at 1. His primary care physician
ordered labwork, assessed him with peripheral neuralgia, and advised to follow-up in
three days. Id. at 107; Ex. 7 at 1. However, Mr. Janni’s symptoms worsened and the next
day (October 9, 2019) he went to the emergency department of the Maui Memorial
Medical Center, where he was admitted and remained in the intensive care unit for 22
days until his death from GBS on October 30, 2019. Ex. 2 at 215-16.
Although Mr. Janni suffered from GBS for only 24 days after his symptoms
commenced on October 7, 2019, there is no question that the severity of his GBS was
unusually high – even in the context of GBS. Over the course of the 22 days Mr. Janni
10 In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that prior to his death, Mr.
Janni was a competent adult and aware of his injury.
8

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 9 of 12
spent in the ICU treating his GBS, he experienced multiple complications, including: acute
respiratory failure, an inability to eat, an inability to communicate, a urinary tract infection
(“UTI”), sepsis following the UTI, bedsores, and paresthesia, an inability to ambulate, and
ultimately death. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 213-16, 224, 441-42, 446-47. His treatment while in
the hospital included but was not limited to: IVIG treatment for five days or sessions; four
plasmapheresis treatments; use of a BiPAP machine to assist with breathing; physical
and/or occupational therapy; and ultimately palliative care. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 213-16,
220, 232. Additionally, Mr. Janni required the insertion of a PEG tube for feeding, and a
PICC line placement. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 214, 216, 432, 657. Mr. Janni also received
numerous medications to address his pain, insomnia, and anxiety, including lorazepam,
Precedex, Oxycodone, Neurontin, topical Lidoderm, and Flexeril. Ex. 2 at 216.
Petitioner and Mr. Janni’s daughters, Lynne Hunt and Carol Janni, filed sworn
statements that describe in detail the pain and suffering he experienced over his final
weeks of life. Exs. 7-9. Mr. Janni experienced difficulty just getting into the car when driven
to the emergency department – he fell out of the bed on the morning of October 9, 2025
and could not independently stand, or sit up. Ex. 7 at 1. Petitioner had to pull her husband
up onto a rolling chair which she strapped him on with a belt, and then wheeled him
through the house to the garage where they struggled to get him into the car. Id. Ms. Hunt
described how once hospitalized “paralysis rapidly overwhelmed [her dad’s] extremities”
and states “he could not move his arms, hands or legs.” Ex. 8 at 1. Ms. Hunt explains that
while he received fluids and nutrition by IV, he “was agonizingly hungry and thirsty,” and
begged her for her soda which she had to refuse. Id. Ms. Hunt states that Mr. Janni
developed a “large bedsore which required rolling him from one side to the other every
few hours” and that when staff performed this procedure “he would yell in agony.” Id. Ms.
Hunt describes how Mr. Janni was “unable to breathe”, and “needed oxygen all the time”.
Id. at 2. Ms, Hunt further explains that his “oxygen mask caused an open wound [to form]
on the bridge of his nose which made it difficult and painful for him to wear”, but because
he required the mask for oxygen the wound would just “kept getting worse.” Id.
Ms. Hunt described Mr. Janni as a “brilliant Ph.D. scientist” whose inability to
communicate as a result of his GBS “frustrated him immensely” and ultimately, he
“completely lost his ability to express what he wanted and needed. Yet he still understood
what we were saying to him. It was like a guessing game. . . . Dad was trapped in his own
body.” Id. at 2. Ms. Hunt states that Mr. Janni “knew he was dying . . . and there was
nothing he could about it. He was upset and scared.” Id. Ms. Hunt recalls how “[a] few
days before [he] died, he became septic and then delirious. . . . The sounds coming out
of him were eerie. It was constant whimpering, groaning, and gurgling.” Id. Ms. Hunt
states that during those final weeks “he got no rest, no comfort, and no peace. Dad died
in agony, all because he was trying to do the right thing and get a flu shot.” Id.
9

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 10 of 12
As I informed the parties during the expedited hearing, the question in this case is
not whether Petitioner is entitled to any compensation for Mr. Janni’s pain and suffering,
but rather what amount of compensation is justified, based upon the facts of the case.
This determination is not an exact science but more of an art. Based upon the record as
a whole, I find that the severity and duration of Mr. Janni’s GBS which ultimately resulted
in his death warrant a significant pain and suffering award - although not quite at the level
requested by Petitioner.
As discussed above, Mr. Janni’s estate is not entitled to an award for his death –
but rather the pain and suffering he experienced as a result of his GBS leading up to and
including his death. The fact that Mr. Janni died as a result of his vaccine injury does not
automatically equate to a pain and suffering award at the statutory maximum. Indeed,
there are many circumstances imaginable in which an injured party’s literal suffering prior
to death was limited. A vaccinee who died very quickly due to an accident following an
injury such as anaphylaxis, for example, would likely receive a pain and suffering award
well below the statutory maximum. The fact of the death itself does not automatically
counsel for an award at the statutory cap (even if it bears on the overall magnitude of the
award).
In her brief, Petitioner cites four prior GBS damages cases – each awarding
$180,000.00 in pain and suffering - but argues that Mr. Janni’s GBS injury was more
severe than the petitioners in those cases. ECF No. 28 at 19-22 (citing Johnson v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July,
20, 2018); McCray v. Sec'y of Health & Hum Servs., No. 19-277V, 2021 WL 4618549
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2021); Kresl v. Sec'y of Health & Hum Servs., No. 22-
0518V, 2024 WL 1931498 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 1, 2024); and Fedewa v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL 1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 26,
2020).11
Respondent argues that his proposed “award of $125,000.00 is supported by
Program precedent, in light of the very limited duration of pain and suffering here, however
severe” and cites to the following decisions: Kresl, 2024 WL 1931498; Wilson v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 20-588V, 2021 WL 5143925 (Fed. Cl. Spec, Mstr. Oct. 5,
2021) (awarding $175,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Rastetter v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 19-1840, 2023 WL 5552317 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 3, 2023)
(awarding $195,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); and O’Donnell v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 21-1508V, 2023 WL 9060699 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 20, 2023)
(awarding $190,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); and Bayley v. Sec’y of Health &
11 Petitioner also cites to cases that have been informally resolved in the Program in support of her
requested award. ECF No. 28 at 22-23. However, as discussed supra at note seven, such determinations
do not provide the same judicial guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision.
10

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 11 of 12
Human Servs., No. 21-1851V, 2024 WL 5656415 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 7, 2024)
(awarding $170,000.00 for actual pain and suffering).12 ECF No. 29 at 5-7.
I find that both parties have offered reasonable case comparables, and
acknowledge that no prior reasoned GBS decisions involve a vaccinee who died as a
result of GBS (and who was also ineligible for the death benefit). Additionally, each award
must be specific to the injured party’s specific circumstances. In this case, Mr. Janni’s
injury did not persist for months, or even years – as seen in many GBS cases. And it did
not demonstrably impact his subsequent life or professional/personal pursuits. But it is
readily apparent that his pain and suffering while hospitalized for 22 days (as described
above) was exceptionally severe. And while 22 days may not be a particularly long
duration of time as a general matter – I find that is a long period of time to endure the
circumstances Mr. Janni encountered, including contemplating the possible outcomes of
his injury.13
In the end, and after reviewing the record and specific facts in this case, and
considering the parties’ arguments during the hearing, I find that $225,000.00 in
compensation for past or actual pain and suffering is reasonable. This sum exceeds the
amount that Respondent proposed, and is appropriately higher than the reasonably good
comparable cases offered by the parties. I deem it to fairly reflect Petitioner’s degree of
suffering at the end of his life, and to fairly reflect the demonstrated severity of his injury.
This case raises the question of the nature of the relationship between the Act’s
fixed death benefit and the pain and suffering sum to be awarded to a decedent vaccinee.
The latter, unlike the death benefit, is not fixed, and depends on a combination of
evidence specific to a claimant and how that claimant’s experience compares to similarly-
situated individuals. I do not find herein that an injured party’s pain and suffering award
cannot take into account a vaccine-associated death (such that the failure to seek the
death benefit forecloses consideration of such factors). But the fact of death itself does
not automatically entitle a petitioner to the full amount of pain and suffering available
under the Act either.
12 This Decision was not publicly available at the time of the filing of Respondent’s brief, therefore
Respondent cited to the “slip opinion” in CM/ECF. ECF No. 29 at 6.
13 The evidence does not wholly support the view that Mr. Janni’s potential death was an absolute and
foregone conclusion. One of Mr. Janni’s providers noted during his hospitalization in regard to his “long
term prognosis [to] anticipate [a] long recovery time frame with significant debilitation on the order of months
to potentially years.” Ex. 2 at 423.
11

Case 1:22-vv-00285-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/25 Page 12 of 12
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $225,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Mr. Janni’s actual pain and suffering.14
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $225,000.00 (representing pain and suffering) 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 Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
14 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)).
15 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.
12