VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00565
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00565
Petitioner: I.A.
Filed: 2022-05-24
Decided: 2025-06-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-11
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 141383

AI-assisted case summary:
Patricia Alanis, as mother and natural guardian of the minor child I.A., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 24, 2022. She alleged that I.A., who was eleven years old, suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 11, 2019. I.A. developed bilateral leg pain, tingling, and weakness thirteen days after vaccination. He was hospitalized from October 24 to October 31, 2019, where an MRI showed findings suggestive of GBS, and he received a lumbar puncture and IVIg treatment. He was transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation facility and discharged on November 14, 2019, able to walk with assistance. He underwent extensive physical and occupational therapy between November 2019 and May 2020. A follow-up with his neurologist on March 13, 2020, indicated his GBS was assessed as "almost fully resolved," and he was discharged from physical therapy on March 17, 2020. I.A. continued to experience intermittent leg pain and fatigue for several years, with records noting discomfort during activities, occasional calf pain after running, and "cramp-like" pain in his legs during physical activity, though his GBS was reported as fully resolved and without relapse. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on June 5, 2023, conceding entitlement, agreeing that I.A. satisfied the criteria for a Table injury. The parties were unable to resolve damages informally, leading to a hearing. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on June 6, 2023, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. In a decision dated June 20, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded I.A. $140,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,383.60 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $141,383.60. The award for expenses excluded the cost of a treadmill due to insufficient evidence of a medical recommendation. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and Respondent was represented by Michael Joseph Lang and later Debra A. Filteau Begley of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner I.A., age 11, received an influenza vaccine on October 11, 2019. Thirteen days later, on October 24, 2019, he developed bilateral leg pain, tingling, and weakness, followed by mild ataxia. Medical records indicated findings suggestive of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and he was treated with IVIg and underwent hospitalization and rehabilitation. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that I.A. satisfied the criteria for a Table injury, specifically GBS with onset between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination, with no more likely alternative diagnosis or apparent alternative cause. The public decision does not name specific medical experts or detail the mechanism of injury beyond the Table presumption. I.A. experienced intermittent leg pain and fatigue for several years, though his GBS was reported as fully resolved. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $140,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,383.60 for unreimbursable expenses, totaling $141,383.60, in a decision issued June 20, 2025. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant and Respondent by Michael Joseph Lang and Debra A. Filteau Begley.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00565-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-06
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/06/2023) regarding 22 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/06/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0565V
UNPUBLISHED
PATRICIA ALANIS, as mother and Chief Special Master Corcoran
natural guardian of minor child, I.A.,
Filed: June 6, 2023
Petitioner,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 24, 2022, Patricia Alanis, as mother and natural guardian of minor child,
I.A., 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 I.A.
suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
received by I.A. on October 11, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that I.A.
received the vaccine in the United States, I.A.’s pain has lasted longer than six months,
and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of
1 Because this unpublished Ruling 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 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 (2018).

Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/06/23 Page 2 of 2
an award or settlement for this vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 11-13; Ex. 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 5, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner 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 more likely
alternative diagnosis and no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 5.
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-00565-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-20
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/13/2025) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/20/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-565V
PATRICIA ALANIS, as mother and Chief Special Master Corcoran
natural guardian of minor child, I.A.,
Filed: May 13, 2025
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 24, 2022, Patricia Alanis, as mother and natural guardian of minor child,
I.A., 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 June 5, 2023,
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding entitlement. ECF No. 20. But the parties
were unable to resolve damages informally, so they agreed instead to submit this dispute
for resolution at an expedited “Motions Day” hearing.
For the reasons set forth below, I award $140,000.00 for actual pain and suffering,
and $1,383.60 for past unreimbursable expenses.
1 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-00565-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/20/25 Page 2 of 6
I. Medical Records
I.A. (aged eleven at the time) received a flu vaccine on October 11, 2019. Ex. 1 at
2-3. On October 24, 2019, thirteen days after vaccination, I.A. reported bilateral leg pain,
tingling, and weakness for two the previous two days. Ex. 2 at 21. A physical exam
showed increased pain and tingling in his posterior thigh muscles, lower extremity
weakness, and mild ataxia with walking. He was sent to Loyola University Medical Center
for additional care. Id. at 24.
At the Loyola medical center, an MRI showed nonspecific finding suggestive of
GBS. Ex. 5 at 273-74. I.A. was then admitted from October 24 to 31, 2019. Id. at 233. A
lumbar puncture and course of IVIg was ordered. Id. at 104.
I.A. was transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation facility on October 31, 2019. Ex.
5 at 233. He was now able to walk with assistance and received four doses of IVIg, but
continued to show impaired mobility, gait impairment, and neuropathic pain. Ex. 3 at 45.
He was discharged on November 14, 2019. Id. at 49.
At a follow-up with his neurologist, I.A. was “able to walk independently with
significant struggling and very unsteady gait.” Ex. 5 at 819-20. Between November 19,
2019 and February 28, 2020, I.A. attended twenty-five physical therapy sessions. Ex. 4
at 18-102. I.A. also had occupational therapy, attending eight sessions between
November 21, 2018 and May 20, 2020. Id. at 103-04.
On March 13, 2020, I.A. had another follow-up with his neurologist. Ex. 5 at 837-
38. He reported intermittent leg pain but no other issues. His GBS was assessed s being
“almost fully resolved” at that time. Id. at 838. I.A. was discharged from physical therapy
on March 17, 2020 having met is goals. Ex. 4 at 103-04.
I.A. reported lingering sequelae, including intermittent calf pain and fatigue until at
last November 16, 2023. See Ex. 7 at 1 (record from May 29, 2020 reporting discomfort
in I.A.’s legs during activates); Ex. 6 at 1 (record from October 2, 2020, reporting
occasional pain in his calf after running), Ex. 6 at 4 (record from November 9, 2021 noting
“cramp-like” pain in his legs during physical activity); Ex. 11 at 1 (record from November
16, 2023 stating I.A.’s legs would hurt mostly when running and jumping). However, his
GBS was reported as fully resolved during this period. Ex. 6 at 4-5 (reporting that I.A. had
not had a GBS relapse since receiving IVIg in 2019); Ex. 9 at 1-2 (record from November
14, 2022 noting I.A.’s GBS had “fully resolved”).
2

Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/20/25 Page 3 of 6
II. Damages
Petitioner requests $240,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $1,823.59 for
unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner’s Opening Brief on Damages (“Pet. Br.”), ECF No.
34, at 7; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Reply”), ECF No. 36, at
2-5; Status Report filed December 19, 2024 (“SR”), ECF No. 38, at 1-2. Respondent
counters that a lower award of $87,500.00 is appropriate for pain and suffering, and
expenses should be reduced by $523.33. Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Opp.”), ECF
No. 35, at 7-10.
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I orally announced my ruling on
damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section
12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the April 30, 2025 hearing. An official recording of the
proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in
this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded.
In a recent decision I discussed at length the legal standards to be considered in
determining damages and prior GBS compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein my
prior discussion in Section II of Ashcraft v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1885V,
2025 WL 882752, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 27, 2025) to the instant Ruling and Decision.
Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various
comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner's medical history and
experience that further informed my resolution of this matter.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times I.A. had no impairments that would impact the awareness of his injury. Therefore,
my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. When
performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole, including the medical records
and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties in written documents, and the
arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing.
Petitioner does not cite comparable cases in support of her request for
$240,000.00, stating that this case is “unique in that the individual who suffered a severe
case of GBS was a young minor.” Pet. Br. at 9, 12. In addition, she emphasizes that I.A.
was unable to walk without assistance while hospitalized and experienced significant fear
during treatment. His treatment was also extensive, including an MRI, IVIg, pain
medication, three weeks of hospitalization, and forty-seven therapy sessions over
3

Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/20/25 Page 4 of 6
approximately six months. I.A. continues to suffer from weakness and pain in his lower
extremities four years after the initial diagnosis of GBS. Id. at 12.
Respondent argues that while I.A. initially had significant discomfort, his GBS was
not as severe as other cases. Within five months of vaccination he was discharged from
physical therapy having met his goals. Opp. at 7-8. Respondent cites to two cases
awarding sums for pain and suffering comparable to what he proposes. Id. at 8-9, citing
to Geschwinder v. HHS, No. 17-1558V, 2022 WL 177372 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28,
2022) and Granville v. HHS, No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 6441388 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 30, 2023).
The record in this case best supports the conclusion that I.A. did not suffer severe
GBS, when compared to other Program claimants. His treatment occurred over
approximately five months, and consisted of an MRI, a lumbar puncture, IVIG, pain
medication, three weeks of hospitalization, and 47 therapy sessions. He did report
lingering sequelae, but they appear to have been mild and intermittent.
Petitioner is correct in that this case is unique - but all GBS cases are unique to
the petitioner and/or patient. Although individual factors are important, consideration of
comparable cases is key in coming to an appropriate damages valuation. There is
certainly a range in GBS cases where recover is often not always complete, and age
absolutely is a factor in both for the ability to recover and the impact on the petitioner’s
suffering.
There have been a handful of GBS cases involving minors, including non-SPU
cases such as Rastetter v. Sec.y' of Health & Hum. Servs.. No. 19-1840V, 2023 WL
5552317 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 3, 2023). The injured party in that case (a 13-year-
old) was awarded $195,000 for a severe case of GBS that involved 34 days of
hospitalization, intubation, and two rounds of IVIg. I.A. had a significantly milder case of
GBS that did not involve intubation, less hospitalization, and only one round of IVIg.
Another case involving a minor, Maxwell v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
provides an even better comparable decision. No. 21-1877V, 2024 WL 1343007 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2024) (awarding $140,000.00 for pain and suffering). The minor in
question was 17 years old, and was hospitalized for nine days, with an additional seven
days in in-patient rehabilitation. He showed significant improvement within four months,
had physical therapy thereafter and showed lingering fatigue. I.A. had initially more
severe care and hospitalization, but quickly improved. Additionally, there is no evidence
of permanent disability in either case aside from lingering sequalae such as intermittent
fatigue.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/20/25 Page 5 of 6
Balancing the severity of I.A.’s injury, the course of treatment, and based on the
record as a whole, I find that $140,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering
is reasonable and appropriate in this case.
IV. Unreimbursable Expenses
Petitioners may be awarded reasonably necessary actual unreimbursable
expenses that were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered a vaccine injury.
Section 15(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner seeks $1,823.59 in past unreimbursable expenses. Pet. Br. at 7, SR at
1-2. Respondent opposes $523.33 of those for specific items including pencil grippers
($8.76), a bathroom safety shower ($34.68), a weighted blanket ($39.00), and a treadmill
($439.99). Opp. at 9. Respondent notes that the majority of these purchases occurred in
2019, with the treadmill purchased in December of 2020. Id.
Petitioner contends that the need for those expenses is evident from the records.
Records from the rehabilitation hospital recommends adaptive equipment such as a
shower chair and discussed I.A.’s struggles to hold a pencil. Ex. 3 at 60, 213. The
weighted blankest is described as part of a self-care training activity designed to improve
calming techniques. Ex. 4 at 119. Further, while there is no treatment record specifically
references a treadmill, Petitioner contends that the treadmill was recommended by I.A.’s
physical therapist. Reply at 4-5.
I find these expenses to be reasonable necessary but for the treadmill. For
purchases of that financial magnitude, clear evidence of a recommendation by a medical
professional is needed. This is not present for the treadmill. Therefore, I award $1,383.60
for past unreimbursable expenses.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $141,383.60 consisting of
$140,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, and $1,383.60 for unreimbursable
expenses to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA
account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00565-UNJ Document 44 Filed 06/20/25 Page 6 of 6
This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be
available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in
accordance with this Decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
6