VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00568
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00568
Petitioner: Lynnette Westbrook
Filed: 2022-05-24
Decided: 2025-08-15
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-16
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 185209

AI-assisted case summary:
Lynnette Westbrook filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 24, 2022, alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) resulting from an influenza vaccine administered on October 16, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on August 29, 2023, conceding that Ms. Westbrook met the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, that the case was timely filed in the United States, and that she satisfied the statutory severity requirement by suffering residual effects for more than six months. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on September 8, 2023, finding Ms. Westbrook entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to agree on damages, leading to a "Motions Day" proceeding on June 27, 2025. Ms. Westbrook, 49 years old at the time of vaccination, had numerous pre-existing conditions including vertigo, hypothyroidism, hypertension, chronic renal insufficiency, and back pain. She received the influenza vaccine on October 16, 2019. Within approximately 17 days, she began experiencing symptoms including back pain, urinary retention, and numbness, leading to a diagnosis of GBS. Her medical records document a course of treatment that included hospitalization, spinal MRI, EMG/NCS testing, lumbar puncture, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and multiple courses of IVIG therapy. She required assistance with daily living activities and used mobility aids such as a wheelchair and walker. Her medical records also indicate ongoing weakness, balance issues, pain, dizziness, and blurred vision. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name expert witnesses. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages on August 15, 2025. He awarded Ms. Westbrook a total of $185,209.45, comprising $175,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $10,209.45 for unreimbursed expenses. In determining the pain and suffering award, Chief Special Master Corcoran considered Ms. Westbrook's awareness of her injury, the severity and duration of her symptoms, and compared her case to prior decisions in Fedewa, Johnson, and Dillenbeck. He noted that while her GBS course was significant, her pre-existing spinal comorbidities may have contributed to some ongoing symptoms. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent's counsel was Christopher Pinto for the damages decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Lynnette Westbrook, age 49, received an influenza vaccine on October 16, 2019. She alleged Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of the vaccine. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, and that her case was timely filed and met the statutory severity requirement. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name expert witnesses. The Special Master awarded $185,209.45, consisting of $175,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $10,209.45 for unreimbursed expenses. The award was based on the severity and duration of Petitioner's GBS symptoms, with consideration given to her pre-existing conditions potentially contributing to some ongoing issues. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on August 15, 2025. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent's counsel was Christopher Pinto.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00568-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/08/2023) regarding 18 Ruling on Entitlementz. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00568-UNJ Document 22 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0568V
LYNNETTE WESTBROOK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 8, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 24, 2022, Lynnette Westbrook 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”) as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on October 16, 2019. Petition
at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On August 29, 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 Because this 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-00568-UNJ Document 22 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 2
1. Specifically, Respondent has concluded that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set
forth in the Vaccine Injury Table . . . and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id.
at 12. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner timely filed her case, that she received
the vaccine in the United States, and that she satisfies the statutory severity requirement
by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months
after vaccination.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00568-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-15
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/07/2025) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-568V
LYNNETTE WESTBROOK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 7, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Christopher Pinto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 24, 2022, Lynette Westbrook 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 she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of
an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 16, 2019. 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 June 27, 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-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 2 of 8
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
in the form of a lump sum payment of $185,209.45 ($175,000.00 for past pain and
suffering, and $10,209.45 for unreimbursed expenses).
I. Procedural History
The case was assigned to SPU in August 2022. ECF No. 9. In August 2023,
Respondent conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 17. I issued a Ruling
on Entitlement on September 8, 2023. ECF No. 18.
On May 24, 2024, the parties reported that they had reached an impasse in
attempting to informally resolve damages. ECF No. 31. I ordered the parties to brief their
respective positions on the damages issue. ECF No. 32. Petitioner filed her brief on
December 24, 2024, Respondent filed his response brief on March 20, 2025, and
Petitioner filed a reply brief on April 21, 2025. ECF Nos. 41 (Pet’r Br.), 43 (Resp’t Br.), 44
(Pet’r Reply Br.). The parties also requested an expedited “Motions Day” hearing and
ruling. See ECF No. 32.
At the end of the June 27, 2025 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-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 3 of 8
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 her
awareness of her 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.
The medical records reflect that Petitioner was 49 years old at the time that she
received the flu vaccine. Ex. 1 at 1. Petitioner was unemployed but cared for her grandson
with special needs. See Ex. 15 at 10. Petitioner had a number of pre-existing medical
conditions, including vertigo, dizziness, hypothyroidism, hypertension, chronic renal
insufficiency, kidney stones, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, stable angina, joint
pain, thoracic back pain and muscle spasms, irritable bowel syndrome, costochondritis,
insomnia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and gout. Ex. 4 at 250-53, 417-22; Ex. 2 at
108-15, 118-20.
Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 16, 2019. Ex. 1 at 1. She went to
her primary care provider (“PCP”), Clinton Medical Center, on November 2, 2019, for
acute upper respiratory infection symptoms, including ear pain and difficulty hearing. Ex.
2 at 104. She returned on November 7, 2019, and November 12, 2019, with the same
symptoms. Ex. 2 at 101-102. She was prescribed antibiotics and then steroids. Id. at 102.
At the November 12, 2019 visit, she also reported back pain and a headache. Id. at 98-
99.
On November 13, 2019, Petitioner went to the Sampson Regional Medical Center
Emergency Department with a complaint of lower back pain that radiated up her neck and
a near fall. Ex. 5 at 159. She was diagnosed with an ear infection and lumbar strain and
prescribed muscle relaxers. Id. On November 14, 2019 and November 16, 2019,
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)).
3

Case 1:22-vv-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 4 of 8
Petitioner visited a different emergency room, UNC Health – Smithfield, with complaints
of back pain and dizziness. Ex. 4 at 10, 66. At the November 16, 2019 visit, she reported
being unable to urinate. Id. at 10. She underwent an x-ray and MRI, which were normal.
Id. at 14, 71. On November 18, 2019, Petitioner went to a third emergency room, UNC
Health – Rex Hospital, for worsening back pain, urinary retention, constipation, and
numbness from the waist down. Ex. 6 at 715. She received another x-ray, which was
normal. Id. at 719.
On November 20, 2019, Petitioner returned to her PCP. The treating physician
noted that she was now in a wheelchair, and had numbness in her arms and from the
waist down. Ex. 2 at 88. Petitioner reported falling three times over the past few days. Id.
Petitioner was diagnosed with “paraplegia, incomplete” and recommended for an urgent
neurosurgery referral and prescribed gabapentin, prednisone, and hydrocodone. Id. at
93.
On November 21, 2019, Petitioner went to UNC Health – Rex Neurosurgery and
Spine Raleigh for lower thoracic and lumbar pain, lower extremity numbness, and inability
to walk. Ex. 6 at 695. The treating physician sent Petitioner to the UNC Health – Rex
emergency room. Id. at 696. The emergency room physician admitted her to the hospital
for further evaluation. Id. at 89, 94. Petitioner was diagnosed with GBS and underwent a
spinal MRI, EMG/NCS testing, a lumbar puncture, physical therapy (“PT”), occupational
therapy (“OT”), and a five-day course of IVIG therapy. Id. at 65-66, 75, 76, 80, 100-108,
138-148, 156, 166, 229, 262-272; Ex. 8 at 67.
Petitioner was discharged home on November 30, 2019, with a referral for home
health services. Ex. 6 at 66, 70. Petitioner did not need in-patient rehabilitation. The in-
home PT and OT noted that Petitioner required assistance “for all functional mobility and
use of rolling walker for balance support” and was dependent on her husband and
daughter to assist with activities of daily living. Ex. 3 at 17, 21. Between December 3,
2019 and January 3, 2020, Petitioner had ten PT sessions and eight OT sessions. Id. at
12-71.
On December 12, 2019, Petitioner received treatment from Raleigh Neurology
Associates for evaluation of her numbness and weakness. Ex. 8 at 140. Petitioner was
noted to be using a walker for stability. Id. at 145. The treating physician recommended
an increase in gabapentin and suggested that she might need a further course of IVIG if
her ongoing back pain, persistent weakness, and gait instability did not improve. Id. at
147.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 5 of 8
On January 16, 2020, Petitioner returned to Raleigh Neurology Associates. She
was found to have pain in her left arm and midback, bilateral lower extremity weakness,
numbness in both feet, trouble swallowing, and was unable to walk unassisted. Id. at 132.
The treating PA ordered a three-day course of outpatient IVIG. Id. at 137, 139.
On January 20, 2020, Petitioner went to her PCP for a follow-up. Ex. 2 at 70.
Petitioner was “wheelchair bound due to weakness” with “reduced muscle strength” in her
bilateral lower extremities. Id. at 72. Petitioner was seen again at Raleigh Neurology
Associates on March 6, 2020. Ex. 8 at 123. Petitioner’s paresthesia and pain had
improved following the IVIG, but she complained of dizziness and double-vision. Id. On
March 27, 2020, Petitioner had another appointment at Raleigh Neurology Associates.
She had some improvement, but the treating physician believed that she was suffering a
“relapse of her neuropathy in the setting of possible recent viral syndrome.” Ex. 8 at 119.
He ordered a five-day course of IVIG and another EMG/NCS test. Id.
After receiving this latest course of IVIG, Petitioner had an April 28, 2020
appointment at Raleigh Neurology Associates. Ex. 8 at 106. Petitioner reported that after
the IVIG, she was able to walk better, her back pain had improved, and she had
numbness in her feet only at night. On examination, she displayed full strength in her
upper and lower extremities. Id. at 110.
Petitioner had additional appointments with Raleigh Neurology Associates on
August 26, 2020, October 9, 2020, and December 22, 2020. Id. at 68, 71, 75, 98.
Petitioner complained of dizziness, gait problems, back pain, fatigue, joint pain, blurred
vision, and a tremor. Id. at 102, 106, 110, 111. Petitioner’s treater ordered a spine MRI,
which revealed “multilevel degenerative disc disease and facet arthropathy, and multilevel
neural foraminal narrowing at L3-L4.” Id. at 56-57. In particular, at the October 9th
appointment Petitioner was noted to have a number of spine conditions, including lumbar
spine degenerative disc disease, lumbar spondylosis, and chronic pain syndrome. Id. at
84.
In June 2021, Petitioner’s primary care provider recommended that she receive a
second opinion about her ongoing neurological issues. Id. at 8-11. On July 6, 2021,
Petitioner went to Fayetteville Neurology Associates. Ex. 7 at 3. Petitioner reported having
a “flare up” of her GBS every time that she got sick that made her weak and unable to
stand or walk. Id. at 7. The treating physician referred her to Duke University Medical
Center for a third opinion. Id. at 4.
Petitioner was seen at Duke University Medical Center on December 3, 2021, and
reported falls and a feeling like her legs were heavy. Ex. 10 at 3-5. The treater ordered a
5

Case 1:22-vv-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 6 of 8
third EMG/NCS test, which she received in March 2022. Id. at 9. The result was
“abnormal, with evidence of a chronic left median neuropathy which localizes proximal to
the wrist.” Id. at 28-29. However, “no evidence of a more widespread polyneuropathy”
was seen. In particular, there was “no evidence of an active demyelinating
polyneuropathy.” Id.
Petitioner also continued to see her PCP for follow-ups. Petitioner had
appointments at the Clinton Medical Center on April 23, 2020, May 8, 2020, June 4, 2021,
September 26, 2022, February 23, 2023, May 25, 2023, August 28, 2023, December 4,
2023, March 12, 2024, and July 23, 2024. Petitioner reported ongoing weakness in her
bilateral lower extremities, balance issues, and used a cane. Petitioner also raised
hearing issues, vertigo, acute rib pain, dropping items, foot numbness, migraines, and
back pain. Ex. 13 at 13, 19, 33, 38, 41; Ex. 14 at 6, 33, 37; Ex. 15 at 10, 37.
As explained at the June 27, 2025 hearing (and in many prior cases), awarding an
amount for pain and suffering is an art and not a science. The parties should look to the
general landscape of past pain and suffering awards, and specific past reasoned
decisions that they believe to be directly “on point,” when presenting their specific
valuations of a case that is formally in damages. That information, when offered by the
parties, can be highly useful in guiding my award (although a petitioner’s personal
circumstances are always the foundation of the award ultimately issued).
In her brief, Petitioner argues that her past pain and suffering warrants an award
of $195,000.00, based on comparison to the prior reasoned decisions of Fedewa and
Johnson.4 Pet’r Brief at 21-23; Pet’r Reply Br. at 9. In both of those cases, the petitioner
was awarded damages for past pain and suffering in the amount of $180,000. Petitioner
argues that her course of treatment and length of ongoing sequelae were more severe
than in Fedewa and Johnson. Id.
Respondent seeks a significantly lower award of $110,000. Respondent does not
provide any case citations in support of this specific amount, but argues that this case is
more akin to Granville,5 in which $92,500.00 was awarded for past pain and suffering.
Resp’t Br. at 16. According to Respondent, the medical records demonstrate that by April
2020, Petitioner’s sequalae had mostly resolved and her EMG/NCS testing showed no
4 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).
5 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-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 7 of 8
further evidence of GBS. Id. at 14-16. Respondent also highlights Petitioner’s other health
conditions as the cause of her ongoing pain and mobility problems. Id.
I find Fedewa and Johnson to be useful comparators for this case. The Fedewa
petitioner was of a similar age to Petitioner at the time of vaccination. He had a slightly
longer inpatient admission (two weeks total of hospital and rehabilitation) but did not need
multiple rounds of IVIG. His long-term course involved similar considerations because he
suffered limitations to his physical capabilities for a year and a half after vaccination,
although he did not need any mobility aids. In total, that individual dealt with residual
symptoms of GBS for over two and a half years.
Similarly, the Johnson petitioner was in her sixties at the time of vaccination. She
was hospitalized for five days and received a single course of IVIG. After three and a half
months, she was able to return to her two jobs and no longer needed to use walking
sticks. However, she still experienced incontinence, fatigue, and numbness in her legs
for over two years after vaccination.
Although neither party discussed my previous decision in Dillenbeck, awarding
$170,000 in past pain and suffering, I also find it to be comparable.6 That petitioner was
61 years old and employed at the time of vaccination. She had a five-day hospital stay
and a five-day stay in a rehabilitation center. She received two rounds of IVIG and
participated in numerous PT sessions. Although the Dillenbeck petitioner was able to go
back to work (with restrictions) after three months, she continued to suffer from weakness,
numbness, and fatigue more than three years after vaccination.
I find that Petitioner’s circumstances fit well with these cases. Fedewa, Johnson,
and Dillenbeck all involved petitioners in their fifties and sixties who had relatively short
inpatient treatment, but dealt with ongoing sequelae that affected their quality of life for
two or more years. These cases counsel that Petitioner’s award for past pain and suffering
should be in the $170,000 to $180,000 range.
However, Petitioner has not provided sufficient justification for an award of
$195,000. Although I find her need for multiple rounds of IVIG to be significant, she did
not experience a longer or more traumatic course of treatment or a more severe prognosis
than in Fedewa, Johnson, or Dillenbeck. Furthermore, unlike the petitioners in those
cases, she has not shown disruptions to employment or physically demanding pursuits,
6 Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-428, 2019 WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
29, 2019).
7

Case 1:22-vv-00568-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/15/25 Page 8 of 8
beyond typical activities of daily living and time spent with loved ones. Her spinal
comorbidities may also likely explain some of her ongoing symptoms.
At the same time, Respondent’s proposal of $110,000 is unacceptably low for this
case. Granville does not represent a comparable set of facts. That petitioner was 28 years
old and in good health at the time of vaccination. Indeed, she acknowledged that she had
a mild course of GBS, recovered quickly, and did not suffer from serious complications.
She was hospitalized for five days and received one course of IVIG. After she was
discharged, she complained of residual symptoms of tingling/numbness for seven months
and participated in six sessions of PT. However, she was almost immediately
independent and performing full work duties and daily activities without problem by two
months post-discharge.
Overall based on my review of this case and comparison to Fedewa, Johnson, and
Dillenbeck, I find it appropriate here to award $175,000.00 for past pain and suffering.7
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record,
Petitioner is awarded a lump sum payment of $185,209.45 ($175,000.00 for past pain
and suffering and $10,209.45 for unreimbursed expenses) 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).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7 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 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