VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00483
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00483
Petitioner: Abby Vaughn
Filed: 2022-11-22
Decided: 2024-03-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-05
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 165736

AI-assisted case summary:
Abby Vaughn, a 16-year-old, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 29, 2022. She alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 5, 2019. The respondent conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that Abby met the criteria for a Table injury. The case then proceeded to a damages determination. Abby sought $170,000 for past pain and suffering, citing her lengthy hospitalization, inpatient rehabilitation, and residual effects. The respondent proposed $110,000, arguing her case was less severe than some prior GBS claims. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the medical records and arguments. The public decision does not detail the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatments beyond IVIG and Gabapentin, nor does it name petitioner's counsel or respondent's counsel in the damages decision, though their names appear in the entitlement ruling. The decision notes Abby was diagnosed with a less common GBS variation, acute motor and sensory neuropathy (AMSAN), and was hospitalized in the pediatric intensive care unit. She received inpatient rehabilitation, used a walker and cane, and experienced headaches and balance issues. The court noted that some later symptoms, such as intermittent thigh and fingertip numbness in March 2021, were attributed by her neurologist to meralgia paresthetica and obesity, rather than GBS. The Special Master found that while Abby's initial pain and suffering was significant due to unusual symptoms and diagnostic delays, her residual symptoms were mild and often attributable to unrelated conditions. Comparing her case to prior awards, the Special Master determined that $165,000 was a fair amount for past pain and suffering. The parties also agreed on $736.27 to satisfy a Medicaid lien. Therefore, Abby Vaughn was awarded a total lump sum of $165,736.27, consisting of $165,000 for pain and suffering and $736.27 for the Medicaid lien.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Abby Vaughn, age 16, received an influenza vaccine on October 5, 2019. She alleged Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing Petitioner met the criteria for a Table injury. The case proceeded to damages. Petitioner sought $170,000 for past pain and suffering, citing hospitalization, rehabilitation, and residual effects. Respondent proposed $110,000, arguing her case was less severe than prior GBS claims. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $165,000 for past pain and suffering and $736.27 for a Medicaid lien, totaling $165,736.27. The Special Master noted Petitioner was diagnosed with AMSAN GBS, hospitalized in the PICU, received IVIG and Gabapentin, and underwent inpatient rehabilitation. Residual symptoms were mild and often attributed to unrelated conditions like meralgia paresthetica and obesity. The decision does not detail specific medical experts, the mechanism of injury, or the exact onset and duration of all symptoms, but notes Petitioner's symptoms were greatly improved by early to mid-2020, with some residual symptoms potentially linked to other conditions. Petitioner's counsel was Paul R. Brazil and respondent's counsel was Tyler King. The decision was issued on March 29, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00483-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-23
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/22/2022) regarding 17 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 20 Filed 12/23/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0483V
UNPUBLISHED
ABBY VAUGHN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 22, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 29, 2022, Abby Vaughn filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), a
defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 5, 2019.
Petition at 1 ¶¶ 1, 12. Petitioner also alleges that she received the flu vaccine within the
United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her GBS for more than six months,
and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation
for her GBS. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 8-10. 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-00483-UNJ Document 20 Filed 12/23/22 Page 2 of 2
On November 21, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria
set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to
interpretation (“QAI”).” Id. at 11.
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-00483-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-29
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/27/2024) regarding 29 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0483V
ABBY VAUGHN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 27, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 29, 2022, Abby Vaughn filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), a
defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 5, 2019.
Petition at 1 ¶¶ 1, 12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of
the Office of Special Masters. After Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties were
unable to resolve damages on their own,3 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).
3 Four and one-half months after Petitioner was determined to be entitled to compensation, the parties
informed me that they had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and requested that I set a
briefing schedule. Status Report, filed April 10, 2023, ECF No. 25.

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 8
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled $165,000.00 for her
past pain and suffering. The parties have agreed Petitioner also is entitled to $736.27 for
satisfaction of the Medicaid lien in this case.
I. 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 &
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.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
4 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.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 8
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).
II. The Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree that Petitioner is entitled to $736.27 to satisfy the Medicaid lien
for payments made on her behalf for treatment of her GBS illness. Respondent’s Brief on
Damages (“Res. Brief”), filed May 25, 2023, at 1, 1 n.1, ECF No. 26. Thus, the only area
of dispute is regarding the appropriate pain and suffering award.
Emphasizing her lengthy hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation, effect on her
high school attendance, and nearly two years of residual effects, Petitioner requests
$170,000.00. Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Pet. Brief”), filed May 25, 2023,
at 1, 11-12, ECF No. 27. Contrasting her circumstances with those experienced by
petitioners in W.B., Robinson, Gross, and Gruba5 – cases involving past pain and
suffering awards ranging from $155,000.00 to $165,000.00 - Petitioner insists her award
should be greater. Pet. Brief at 11. Instead, she maintains her case is similar to Dillenbeck
and T.M.6 – cases involving awards of $170,000.00 and $180,000.00, respectively, and
petitioners with “more significant physical symptoms and a need for extended treatment
that affected their mental health and enjoyment of life.” Id.
Respondent counters that Petitioner should be awarded only $110,000.00, for her
past pain and suffering. Res. Brief at 1, 13-14. To support his position, he asserts that
“[P]etitioner’s clinical course [wa]s less severe than those in previous flu/GBS cases
where damages were decided by the Court. Id. at 26 (citing Shankar and Dillenbeck7).
5 W.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1634V, 2020 WL 5509686 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7,
2020) (awarding $155,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Robinson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 18-0088V, 2020 WL 5820967 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2020) (awarding $160,000.00 for actual
pain and suffering); Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021), review denied, 154 Fed. Cl. 109 (2021) (awarding $160,000.00 for actual pain
and suffering); Gruba v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1157V, 2021 WL 1925630 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 13, 2021) (awarding $165,000.00 for actual pain and suffering).
6 Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0428V, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
29, 2019) (a decision I issued awarding $170,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $10,857.15, the net
present value of payments of $5,000.00 per year for 22 years); T.M. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
19-0119V, 2023 WL 355358 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 19, 2022 and reissued on Jan. 23, 2023 in redacted
form) (damages ruling indicating an award of $180,000.00 for actual pain and suffering was appropriate).
The reasoning for the amount of the T.M. award as set forth in the damages ruling was then incorporated
into a damages decision awarding the appropriate amount. See T.M. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-0119V, 2023 WL 1958568 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2023 and reissued Feb. 13, 2023)
(awarding $180,000.00 for actual pain and suffering).
7 Shankar v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1382V, 2022 WL 2196407 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
5, 2022) (awarding $135,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
3

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 8
Specifically, Respondent emphasizes the five-year period that the Shankar petitioner
continued to experience residual symptoms. Res. Brief at 11.
Regarding the duration of Petitioner’s symptoms, Respondent contends “there is
no evidence of [P]etitioner suffering from resulting sequelae last[ing] past July 17, 2020.”
Res. Brief at 13 (citing Exhibit 2 at 2838 (noting Petitioner could discontinue her
Gabapentin). He argues that Petitioner’s neurologist opined that the intermittent thigh and
right fingertip numbness she experienced in March 2021 “was secondary to meralgia
paresthetica[8] (not her previous episode of GBS), and recommended that ongoing weight
loss would be beneficial.” Res. Brief at 13 (citing Exhibit 2 at 2907).
In his responsive brief,9 Respondent further disputes Petitioner’s assertion that
Robinson and Dillenbeck are comparable cases. Respondent’s Response to Pet. Brief
(“Res. Response”). For example, he contrasts the Robinson petitioner’s circumstances –
involving an episode of positional tachycardia10 raising concerns for a pulmonary
embolism,11 and her status as a 41-year-old working mother with Petitioner’s status as a
16-year-old high school student who was still able to graduate on time. Id. at 2.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. Although not yet an adult, the
record reflects that at all times Petitioner was a competent teenager with no impairments
that would impact her awareness of her GBS injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the
severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury.
In performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including the
medical records, affidavits, 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
No. 17-0428V, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019) (a decision I issued awarding
$170,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $10,857.15, the net present value of payments of $5,000.00
per year for 22 years).
8 Meralgia paresthetica is “a type of entrapment neuropathy caused by the entrapment of the lateral femoral
cutaneous nerve at the inguinal ligament, causing paresthesia, pain, and numbness in the outer surface of
the thigh in the region supplied by the nerve.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S “)
at 1136 (32nd ed. 2012).
9 Petitioner did not file a reply reacting to Respondent’s brief.
10 Tachycardia is an “excessive rapidity in the action of the heart.” DORLAND’S at 1867.
11 An embolism is “the sudden blocking of an artery by a clot or foreign material which has been brought to
its site of lodgment by the blood current.” DORLAND’S at 606. A pulmonary embolism is “the closure of the
pulmonary artery or one of its branches by an embolism.” Id.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 5 of 8
and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases.12 However, I ultimately base my
determination on the circumstances of this case.
The evidence shows that Petitioner – age 16 when vaccinated - suffered a
moderate GBS illness involving several trips and calls to her primary care provider
(“PCP”) and the emergency room (“ER”), before being diagnosed with a less common
variation of GBS involving acute motor and sensory neuropathy (known as AMSAN).13
During her hospitalization, Petitioner was transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit
(“PICU”) due to a concern that she may develop breathing issues. Exhibit 2 at 683.
Petitioner received five days of IVIG treatment, with good improvement after receiving an
increased dosage (adjusted to account for her additional weight) during the last two days.
Id. at 703. She continued to receive Gabapentin and various pain medication for her
headaches. Id. at 703-04.
Following her hospitalization, from November 9 through 21, 2019, Petitioner was
transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation facility for thirteen additional days of treatment.
Exhibit 2 at 703-708; 1793-97. During this time, Petitioner continued to experience severe
headaches, could ambulate with a walker, and was able to go to the bathroom unassisted.
Id. at 1793. After her discharge on December 3, 2019, Petitioner used a cane while at
home and a walker in crowded public settings, such when at school. Id. at 1824, 2759.
Petitioner was authorized to return to school on December 9, 2019, although it was
recommended that she do so for only half days. Id. at 1798, 1824-26.
12 Statistical data for all GBS cases resolved in SPU by proffered amounts from inception through January
1, 2024 reveals the median amount awarded to be $171,133.72. The awards in these cases - totaling 364,
have typically ranged from $128,645.56 to $256,835.75, representing cases between the first and third
quartiles and awards comprised of all categories of compensation – including lost wages. 47 cases include
the creation of an annuity to provide for future expenses.
Past pain and suffering amounts awarded in substantive decisions issued in 34 SPU GBS cases range
from $92,500.00 to $192,500.00, with an additional case involving annuity payments. The median amount
past pain and suffering award in these 35 cases was $165,000.00, with awards falling within the first and
third quartiles ranging from $155,000.00 to $180,000.00.
13 Petitioner first visited the ER on November 1, 2019, complaining of a worsening headache, currently at
a pain level of ten out of ten, and toe numbness for two to three days. Exhibit 3 at 405. Diagnosed with a
migraine or tension headache, she was administered pain medication intravenously (“IV”). Id. at 407. Three
days later, Petitioner visited her PCP due to a return of her headache and worsening numbness, now in
her legs, hands, and fingers. Exhibit 2 at 2728. At her second ER visit on November 5, 2019, Petitioner
again received IV pain medications. Exhibit 3 at 370. Three days before a scheduled MRI, Petitioner’s
mother telephoned her PCP, alerting them to Petitioner’s worsening symptoms of numbness in her legs,
arms, face, and tongue and difficulties walking. Exhibit 2 at 2736. She was instructed to take Petitioner to
the ER. Id. Admitted to the hospital that same day, GBS was considered as a possible diagnosis on
November 10, 2019. Exhibit 2 at 620, 623. After further testing a diagnosis of GBS (specifically AMSAN)
was confirmed and IVIG treatment was initiated. Exhibit 2 at 680-684; see also 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)
(2017) (additional Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for GBS).
5

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 6 of 8
When seen for a physical therapy (“PT”) evaluation on December 10, 2019,
Petitioner reported that she continued to experience headaches, was taking Gabapentin,
and was concerned after falling due to ongoing balance issues. Exhibit 2 at 2750-51.
Additionally, based upon several factors, including her recent GBS illness, Petitioner was
hospitalized for passive suicidal thoughts and depression on January 10, 2020. Exhibit 4
at 3. She received inpatient treatment through January 13, 2020. Id. at 7. At her ninth and
final PT session on January 21, 2020, Petitioner reported no headache pain, some
continued numbness and tingling in her hands, but a desire to return to work, which was
approved. Id. at 2816. And, at an appointment in July 2020, her neurologist opined that
Petitioner showed “excellent improvement in her cranial nerve and motor deficits,” but
observed that she had required hospitalization for depression and her obesity appeared
to be worsening. Exhibit 2 at 2838. He recommended that Petitioner wean herself off
Gabapentin. Id.
Because many of the symptoms Petitioner experienced during 2020 and 2021 may
have been due, in part, to unrelated conditions, it is difficult to assess the exact duration
of Petitioner’s GBS illness. For example, Petitioner’s pediatric ophthalmologist opined that
the blurriness she was experiencing in February 2020, was due to “uncorrected myopia
and a small angle exophoria noted on today’s examination,” rather than her GBS illness.
Exhibit 2 at 2825. And, in March 2021, Petitioner’s neurologist opined that numbness
Petitioner was experiencing in her right thigh was likely secondary to meralgia
paresthetica and connected to Petitioner’s morbid obesity. Id. at 2907. Thus, even though
she may have continued to suffer some mild residual symptoms thereafter, Petitioner’s
symptoms were greatly improved by the early to mid-2020.
Petitioner’s initial pain and suffering was no doubt heightened by the unusual
symptoms she experienced, and her treating physician’s inability to quickly diagnosis her
illness. However, her residual symptoms were mild and often can be attributed to
unrelated conditions. Therefore, the more severe cases proposed by Petitioner, which
involved Petitioner’s who continued to struggle with significant residual symptoms do not
constitute good comparable cases. See Dillenbeck, 2019 WL 4072069, at *2-4 (describing
continued residual effects which the special master found impacted her ability to do her
job); T.M., 2023 WL 355358, at *17 (noting ongoing symptoms). However, Petitioner’s
initial phase was clearly more troubling that some of the cases cited by Petitioner as
warranting lesser awards. See, e.g., W.B., 2020 WL 5509686, at *1-2; Gross, 2021 WL
2666685, at *4. Thus, I agree that Petitioner’s award should be greater than that awarded
in cases such as W.B. and Gross.
Robinson offers the most helpful comparable case. Although the Robinson
petitioner’s hospitalization was further complicated by difficulties performing a lumbar
puncture, a move to the intensive care unit, and possible episode of tachycardia, raising
6

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 7 of 8
the possibility of a pulmonary embolism, it was only six days in duration. Robinson, 2020
WL 5820967, at *2. And the Robinson petitioner did not require inpatient rehabilitation,
but was able to rely, instead, on outpatient physical therapy. Id. at *2-3. Furthermore, I do
not find Respondent’s contention - that the Robinson petitioner’s circumstances as a 41-
year-old mother equates to greater pain and suffering, to be persuasive. Both the
Robinson petitioner and the Petitioner in this case encountered difficulties related to their
individual circumstances. Ms. Vaughn’s young age and desire to fully participate in her
high school years not doubt caused her sadness and frustration.
As I have explained previously at expedited “Motions Day” hearings, GBS pain and
suffering awards generally should be higher than those awarded to SIRVA claimants, and
statistical data for past awards supports that premise. See supra note 6. Thus, Petitioner’s
pain and suffering award should be greater than the $110,000.00 proposed by
Respondent. Weighing all of the above, I deem an amount slightly lower than that
proposed by Petitioner ($170,000.00), but slightly greater than the amount awarded in
Robinson ($160,000.00) to be a fair and reasonable past pain and suffering award.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $165,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s past/actual pain and suffering.14 And, as agreed upon
by the parties, there is a Medicaid lien in this case of $736.27.
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $165,736.27, as follows:
1. A lump sum payment of $165,000.00, representing compensation for actual
pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; and
2. A lump sum payment of $736.27, representing reimbursement of a Medicaid
lien for services rendered to Petitioner by the State of Wisconsin, in the form
of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Wisconsin Casualty Recovery,
and mailed to:
Wisconsin Casualty Recovery
5615 High Point Drive, Suite 100
Irving, TX 75038-9984.
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)).
7

Case 1:22-vv-00483-UNJ Document 33 Filed 03/29/24 Page 8 of 8
Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Wisconsin Casualty Recovery for satisfaction
of the Medicaid lien. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that
would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
The Clerk of the 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
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.
8