VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00337
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00337
Petitioner: Henry Ricci
Filed: 2022-03-29
Decided: 2025-08-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-20
Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 142344.98

AI-assisted case summary:
On March 29, 2022, Henry Ricci filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination he received on November 20, 2020 caused Guillain-Barre syndrome. He was 58 years old, self-employed as a certified public accountant, and had a history that included obesity, a bicep tendon rupture, and right rotator cuff repair.

Thirteen days after vaccination, on December 3, 2020, Mr. Ricci went to the emergency room with tingling in his hands and feet and difficulty walking. He had decreased reflexes, ataxia, and paresthesias in his arms and legs. He was hospitalized, treated initially with steroids, and underwent imaging, lumbar puncture, and EMG testing. The lumbar puncture and EMG confirmed GBS, and he received a five-day IVIG course with improvement. He then transferred to Encompass for inpatient rehabilitation, where he received intensive PT and OT, and later had home-health services.

Mr. Ricci described the lumbar puncture as extremely painful and requiring nine attempts. After returning home, he still had pain, speech difficulty, facial weakness, tingling, and difficulty with daily tasks; he was out of work for about a month. By later follow-up, most symptoms had improved, but he continued to report tingling in fingers and toes, eye tearing/blurriness, and some pain.

Respondent conceded entitlement, and damages were litigated. Petitioner sought $185,000 for pain and suffering; respondent proposed no more than $85,000. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found Mr. Ricci's acute course serious and frightening, but more moderate than higher-award GBS cases because he improved substantially and required limited outpatient therapy. On August 26, 2025, he awarded $142,344.98: $140,000 for past pain and suffering, $268.78 for unreimbursed expenses, and $2,076.20 for lost wages.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on November 20, 2020, age 58, causing Table Guillain-Barre syndrome with onset December 3, 2020. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded entitlement. Medical course included paresthesias, ataxia, decreased reflexes, hospitalization, lumbar puncture and EMG confirming GBS, steroids, five-day IVIG, inpatient rehabilitation at Encompass, home health/PT, gabapentin, temporary inability to work as a self-employed CPA, and residual tingling, facial weakness/asymmetry, tearing/blurry vision, and pain that largely improved. Award $142,344.98: $140,000 past pain and suffering, $268.78 unreimbursed expenses, and $2,076.20 lost wages. Chief Special Master Corcoran, entitlement May 2, 2023, damages August 26, 2025. Attorney: Ryan M. Finn, Muller Brazil.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00337-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/02/2023) regarding 17 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 20 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0337V
UNPUBLISHED
HENRY RICCI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 2, 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.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 29, 2022, Henry Ricci filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on November 20, 2020.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On May 1, 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.
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-00337-UNJ Document 20 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 2
Specifically, Respondent states that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
revised Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. Id. at 7.
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-00337-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-26
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/26/2025) regarding 43 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-337V
HENRY RICCI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 26, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 29, 2022, Henry Ricci filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (“Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of
an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November 20, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters, and
although entitlement was conceded in Petitioner’s favor, the parties could not agree to
damages, and their dispute was therefore submitted to resolution at a “Motions Day”
proceeding on August 22, 2025.
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-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 2 of 9
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
in the form of a lump sum payment of $142,344.98 ($140,000.00 for past pain and
suffering, plus two damages components not in dispute: $268.78 for unreimbursed
expenses, and $2,076.20 for lost wages).
I. Procedural History
The case was assigned to SPU in June 2022. ECF No. 9. In May 2023,
Respondent conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 16. I issued a Ruling
on Entitlement on May 2, 2023. ECF No. 17.
On April 8, 2024, the parties reported that they had reached an impasse in
attempting to informally resolve damages. ECF No. 29. I ordered the parties to brief their
respective positions on the damages issue. Petitioner filed her brief on September 16,
2024, Respondent filed his response brief on October 31, 2024, and Petitioner filed a
reply brief on November 15, 2024. ECF Nos. 36 (Pet’r Br.), 38 (Resp’t Br.), 39 (Pet’r Reply
Br.). On August 22, 2025, I held an expedited hearing to resolve damages.
At the end of the expedited hearing, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on
damages in this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing, which
is yet to be filed on the case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully
incorporated into this Decision.
II. Authority
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining GBS damages, taking into account prior compensation
determinations within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in
Sections I-II of Ashcraft v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1885V, 2025 WL
882752, at *1-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2025).
In sum, 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). 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). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and
2

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 3 of 9
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.3
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of his injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole to include
the medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs and other pleadings. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and
non-SPU GBS cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I
base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
Petitioner was 58 years old at the time that he received the flu vaccine and was
self-employed as a certified public accountant. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 9 at 2. Petitioner’s medical
history included obesity, a bicep tendon rupture, and a right rotator cuff repair. Ex. 2 at
46, 127-128, 208; Ex. 4 at 10.
Petitioner received the flu vaccine on November 20, 2020 at an appointment with
his primary care physician (“PCP”), Dr. Jay Malickel. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 4 at 2. On December
3, 2020, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Inspira Medical Center complaining of
tingling in his hands and feet and trouble walking for the past five days. Ex. 2 at 208.
Petitioner was found to have decreased reflexes, ataxia, and paresthesia in the upper
and lower extremities. Id. at 209-210. Petitioner was admitted to the hospital and received
steroids. Id. at 225. He also underwent an MRI, a CT scan of his brain, and an EKG.4 Id.
at 212, 225. After further examinations by an orthopedist and a neurologist, Petitioner
was diagnosed with GBS. Id. at 231.
On December 4, 2020, Inspira Medical Center transferred Petitioner to the
University of Pennsylvania Hospital (“UPH”) due to his need for a higher level of care. Id.
at 192, 231. At the time of transfer, Petitioner reported that the tingling had significantly
subsided, but he was still experiencing weakness and a lack of reflexes. Ex. 5 at 20-22.
3 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (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)).
4 Petitioner’s mercury levels were also tested because he reported eating a can of sardines every day, but
were deemed normal. Ex. 5 at 208, 381.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 4 of 9
He also was unable to stand or walk without assistance. Id. at 22.
While at UPH, Petitioner had another MRI, a lumbar puncture, and an EMG/NCS
test. Id. at 33-35, 51, 173, 371. The results of the lumbar puncture and EMG confirmed
GBS. Id. at 33-35. Petitioner then received a five-day course of IVIG. Id. at 54. Petitioner
reported improvement after the IVIG. Id. at 15. He was also prescribed gabapentin. Id. at
15. Petitioner received inpatient physical therapy (“PT”) and occupational therapy (“OT”)
services.5 Id. at 123-124, 130, 136, 140. The therapists recommended that Petitioner be
transferred to facility where he could receive more than three hours of therapy per day.
Id. at 124, 130; see also id. at 26.
On December 11, 2020, UPH discharged Petitioner to Encompass Health
Rehabilitation Hospital (“Encompass”) for inpatient rehabilitation. Ex. 3 at 109-165, 285;
Ex. 5 at 13. At discharge, Petitioner was reported to have significantly improved his
strength and sensation but still had facial weakness. Ex. 5 at 15. Petitioner received
extensive PT and OT (two sessions per day) and also speech therapy at Encompass. Ex.
3 at 93-94, 163, 500-548; Ex. 9 at 2. The medical staff at Encompass noted that Petitioner
had improved remarkably well in a short period of time and that his lower extremity
strength and sensation had “improved dramatically.” Ex. 3 at 250.
Petitioner was discharged home on December 17, 2020. Ex. 3 at 109-111.
Petitioner reported that he was “80% better” since admission. Id. at 163. Petitioner’s
discharge summary noted diminished sensations, mild weakness persisting in the lower
extremities and the right side of his face, and hypertension. Id. at 162-163.
On December 21, 2020, Petitioner received an in-home examination by a nurse
through a home health care service. Ex. 10 at 21. The nurse described that Petitioner
needed assistance to walk and for certain activities like putting on/taking off footwear,
dressing, and bathing. Id. at 26, 31. The nurse assigned him “homebound” status because
he needed assistance to go out. Id. at 35.
On December 22, 2020, Petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Malickel to follow
up on his hospitalization. Ex. 4 at 13. Petitioner reported improvement, but was still
experiencing right-sided facial weakness and hypertension. Id. Petitioner also used a
cane due to balance issues. Id. Dr. Malickel increased Petitioner’s blood pressure
medication and recommended continued PT. Id.
On December 29, 2020, Petitioner received an in-home PT session through the
5 Petitioner also developed symptoms of syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion and
had to be placed on fluid restrictions. Id. at 71, 83.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 5 of 9
home healthcare service. Ex. 10 at 43. The physical therapist stated that Petitioner had
decreased lower extremity strength and decreased balance. Id. Petitioner also had
difficulty leaving the house due to exit stairs. Id. Petitioner participated in one more in-
home PT session on January 5, 2021. Id. at 53.
On January 22, 2021, Petitioner had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Malickel. Ex.
4 at 6. Petitioner reported feeling 95% back to baseline but still had mild soreness in his
legs after PT and ongoing right-sided facial weakness. Id. at 16. Petitioner stated that he
had weaned off his medications and had returned to work. Id.
Petitioner had a follow-up visit with a neurologist on April 19, 2021. Ex. 7 at 2.
Petitioner reported residual tingling in his left finger tips, occasional sharp arm pain, mild
facial asymmetry, and increased tearing in his right eye. Id. He also stated that he had
developed aching in his thighs before the appointment, but this had resolved after taking
gabapentin for four days. Id. The neurologist noted that Petitioner had mild right-sided
facial weakness but normal gait. Id. at 1, 3. The neurologist also stated that Petitioner had
almost completely recovered from his GBS. Id. at 1.
On July 13, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Malickel for pre-operative clearance
for an unrelated thyroidectomy. Ex. 8 at 1. Petitioner again reported improvement of his
GBS symptoms but still experienced occasional tingling in his hands and feet, a poking
sensation in his elbow and thigh, and mild right-sided facial weakness. Id. Petitioner’s
wife reported that his speech got worse when fatigued. Id. Dr. Malickel found that
Petitioner had a decreased right nasolabial fold and decreased deep tendon reflexes in
his extremities. Id. at 2.
Petitioner submitted a declaration dated April 28, 2022. Petitioner emphasized that
his lumbar puncture took nine attempts and was extremely painful. Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. 5 at 33.
Petitioner explained that he was only able to leave Encompass after a short time because
his wife is a nurse and could assist him at home. Ex. 9 at 2. After his hospitalization,
Petitioner experienced ongoing pain in his extremities and some speech impairment,
which made it difficult to talk to his clients after returning to work. Id. Petitioner was out of
work for one month. Id. As of the date of his declaration, Petitioner stated that most of his
symptoms were gone, but he still had some tingling in his fingers and toes, blurry
eyes/tearing, and pain in his hip. Id.
Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration on September 16, 2024. Petitioner
stated that although he had made “significant improvements,” and had “mostly
recovered,” he was still not “back to baseline.” Ex. 12 at 1. He also stated that he had a
5

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 6 of 9
routine physical in April 2024 with Dr. Malickel and reported to Dr. Malickel that he still
experienced tingling in his fingers and toes. Id.
As explained at the August 22, 2025 hearing (and in many prior cases), awarding
an amount for pain and suffering is an art and not a science. Special masters look to the
general landscape of past pain and suffering awards, and specific past reasoned
decisions relevant to a claimant’s own circumstances. That information, when offered by
the parties, can be highly useful in guiding my award (although a petitioner’s personal
experiences in dealing with a vaccine injury are always the foundation of the award
ultimately issued).
In his brief, Petitioner argues that his past pain and suffering warrants an award of
$185,000.00, based on comparison to the prior reasoned decisions of Fedewa and
Johnson.6 Pet’r Brief at 13-14. In both of those cases, claimants were awarded damages
for past pain and suffering in the amount of $180,000.00. Petitioner argues that the length
of his treatment and types of interventions that he received were similar to or more severe
than in Fedewa and Johnson. Id.
Respondent seeks a significantly lower award no more than $85,000.00.
Respondent does not provide any case citations in support of this specific amount, but
argues that this case is more akin to Granville,7 in which $92,500.00 was awarded for
past pain and suffering. Resp’t Br. at 10-11. According to Respondent, the medical
records demonstrate that although Petitioner had a longer hospitalization and in-patient
rehabilitation than in Granville, he recovered quickly and did not need substantial out-
patient PT. See id.
I find that this case is not sufficiently similar to Fedewa and Johnson to merit an
award in that higher range. Petitioner’s reliance on these cases appears to be based on
a facial comparison of the number of days of hospitalization/rehabilitation and types of
tests and treatment received. See Pet’r Br. at 13-14. However, Petitioner ignores the
overall greater severity of symptoms experienced by the Fedewa and Johnson
petitioners.
Petitioner highlights that the Fedewa petitioner was hospitalized for eight days
followed by five days of inpatient rehabilitation, experienced a traumatic lumbar puncture
6 Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL 1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
26, 2020) and Johnson v. Se’cy of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 20, 2018).
7 Granville v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 64413388 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
30, 2023).
6

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 7 of 9
and EMG, and received a five-day course of IVIG. Id. Petitioner also suggests that his
inability to work for one month is similar to that claimant being unable to work for three
months. Id. However, there is a large disparity with Fedewa for PT services received.
Petitioner only needed two PT sessions after discharge from in-patient rehabilitation, but
the Fedewa petitioner participated in 22 outpatient PT sessions.
Petitioner also does not acknowledge that the Fedewa petitioner had limitations to
his physical capabilities and difficulty functioning for a year and a half. By contrast,
Petitioner reported being at 95% within two to three months. Ex. 4 at 16. Further, the
Fedewa petitioner developed depression and anxiety and experienced negative effects
on his family and social life for two and a half years, which Petitioner did not report.
Although Petitioner has not been not totally symptom-free in that he still has tingling in his
extremities and had mild facial weakness for some time, his residual symptoms were not
as severe as in Fedewa.
With regard to Johnson, Petitioner notes that he had a longer inpatient stay
because that petitioner was hospitalized for five days without any in-patient rehabilitation.
See Pet’r Br. at 14. The Johnson petitioner also received a lumbar puncture and a five-
day course of IVIG. However, Petitioner does not discuss that the Johnson claimant had
more serious limitations on her mobility for a longer period of time. Even though she was
not admitted to rehabilitation, she had not recovered at the time of discharge and had
difficulty walking for months. Like in Fedewa, the Johnson petitioner was also limited in
her ability to perform her two jobs for a long period of time and experienced incontinence,
fatigue, and numbness in her legs for over two years after vaccination.
Respondent is therefore correct that these other petitioners “experienced unique
residuals not seen in this case.” Resp’t Br. at 10. Even though Petitioner did have a
frightening and painful experience, I do not agree with Petitioner’s characterization that
he suffered a dramatic, severe, extensive, and debilitating injury. See Pet’r Br. at 8, 11;
Pet’r Reply at 1. Petitioner had a serious acute phase but then recovered well. There is
no basis for awarding Petitioner even more damages than the $180,000.00 awarded in
Fedewa and Johnson.
However, Respondent’s proposal of not more than $85,000.00 is far too low for
this set of facts. The Granville claimant was admitted to the hospital for five days and
received one course of IVIG, but retained her ability to walk and did not need inpatient
rehabilitation. After she was discharged, that petitioner was almost immediately
independent and performing full work duties and daily activities without problem by two
months post-discharge. Petitioner did recover relatively quickly, but the acute phase of
his illness was certainly more severe than in Granville.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 8 of 9
Although neither party discussed my previous decision in Weil, awarding
$140,000.00 in past pain and suffering, I find it to be very comparable to the instant case.8
That individual was admitted to the hospital for five days and had one round of IVIG, an
MRI, and a lumbar puncture. The Weil petitioner then spent 20 days in inpatient
rehabilitation. His strength and balance significantly improved during that time, although
he still had some mobility issues at discharge. He then attended seven outpatient PT
sessions in the next month. Within two months of the start of that petitioner’s
hospitalization, he reported being nearly back to baseline, with some lingering numbness
and imbalance. He continued to report mild residuals but did not require any further
treatment.
I explained in Weil that pain and suffering awards in the range of $170,000 to
$180,000 typically “involve more severe GBS, and where the injured parties experienced
far worse prognoses subsequent to their initial hospitalizations and could no longer work
(or were out of work for several months), attended far more physical therapy visits, and
continued to require medication for pain specifically related to the GBS.” Nonetheless,
GBS is a “serious and frightening vaccine injury” and generally results in some residual
sequelae. As in Weil, to balance the severity of a GBS injury and Petitioner’s painful
personal experience against his overall moderate disease course and treatment
requirements, I find it appropriate to award $140,000.00 for past pain and suffering in this
case as well.9
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record,
Petitioner is awarded a lump sum payment of $142,344.98 ($140,000.00 for past pain
and suffering, $268.78 for unreimbursed expenses, and $2,076.20 for lost wages)
to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for
prompt disbursement. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
8 Weil v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-831V, 2023 WL 1778281 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 6,
2023).
9 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)).
8

Case 1:22-vv-00337-UNJ Document 49 Filed 09/26/25 Page 9 of 9
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 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