VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00701
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00701
Petitioner: Kristina Lemon
Filed: 2023-03-22
Decided: 2024-06-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-26
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 149370

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristina Lemon filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccination she received on October 26, 2020. Her symptoms, including weakness and decreased sensation in her lower extremities, began approximately 16 days after vaccination. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that her condition was a Table injury and that she met the criteria for a presumption of causation. The parties were unable to agree on damages, leading to a decision awarding compensation. The court found that Ms. Lemon is entitled to an award of $149,370.00, which includes $145,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,370.00 for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. The court considered the severity and duration of her GBS, noting her initial hospitalization, IVIG treatment, and subsequent therapies, as well as residual symptoms like numbness and fatigue that persisted for about a year. While acknowledging her ongoing symptoms, the court did not award future damages due to insufficient evidence of continued treatment or significant impacts on employment. The award aims to compensate for her actual pain and suffering and related expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00701-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/22/2023) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 22 Filed 04/25/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0701V
UNPUBLISHED
KRISTINA LEMON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 22, 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.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 22, 2023, Kristina Lemon 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 from Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a
result of an influenza vaccination she received on October 26, 2020. Petition at 1.
Petitioner further alleges that her symptoms have persisted longer than six months.
Petition at ¶11. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On March 22, 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 states that “it is Respondent’s position that Petitioner suffered
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-00701-UNJ Document 22 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 2
from GBS, and that she has satisfied the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury
Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford her
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 6.
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-00701-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-25
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/23/2024) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0701V
KRISTINA LEMON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 23, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 22, 2022, Kristina Lemon 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 alleged that she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
following an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 26, 2020. Petition at 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters, and
although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties were not able to settle damages.
After hearing argument from the parties at a “Motions Day” proceeding, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in the amount of $149,370.00, representing
$145,000.00 in actual pain and suffering, plus $4,370.00 in unreimbursed out-of-
pocket expenses.
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-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
Nine months after this case was filed, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report
conceding entitlement. ECF No. 19. After a brief period of negotiations, the parties
determined that they could not resolve damages on their own. ECF No. 24. Petitioner
thereafter filed a Brief in Support of Damages (“Br.”) on August 8, 2023. ECF No. 25.
Respondent filed a responsive brief (“Resp.”) on September 26, 2023. ECF No. 26. I
proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions at a “Motions
Day” hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed issues. ECF No. 29. That hearing
was held on May 17, 2024, and the case is now ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Medical History
Petitioner, a former firefighter, received a flu vaccine on October 27, 2020. Ex. 1
at 38. Her medical history included a cervical fusion, a right knee replacement, chronic
pain from work-related injuries sustained in a building collapse in 2006, PTSD, anxiety
and depression. See Petition at ¶4; Ex. 1 at 70-72; Ex. 2 at 23-25.
On November 12, 2020 (16 days after vaccination), Petitioner went to the
emergency room complaining of decreased sensation and weakness in her lower
extremities that began the previous day. Ex. 4 at 20. She also reported shortness of
breath and a constricted feeling in her chest. Id. She was admitted for evaluation and had
normal EKG and MRI exams. Id. at 22. The following day, during a neurological exam,
Petitioner reported numbness in her hands and feet, generalized weakness, and
dyspnea, and her deep tendon reflexes were absent. Id. at 95-96. She was started on
IVIG. Id. at 70. A lumbar puncture was attempted on November 14, but was unsuccessful.
Id. at 76. A second, ultrasound guided lumbar puncture was successful on November 16,
and revealed albumin-cytologic dissociation, indicating GBS. Id. Petitioner was
hospitalized through November 17, 2020, when she was discharged to her home. Id. at
76.
Petitioner received home health care services, including in-home occupational
therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy, from November 19, 2020, through
January 8, 2021. Ex. 8. At her last visit, Petitioner was deemed to be “independent in the
home.” Id. at 11. At that time, she had met most of her therapy goals, but continued to
have mild balance issues without support and had not yet mastered normal swallowing
or oral function. Id. at 12-13.
On December 8, 2020, Petitioner established care with an outpatient neurologist.
Ex. 5 at 3-5. She reported minimal improvement during her hospitalization and
complained of a new left facial nerve palsy. Id. at 3. She also noted that she was
2

Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 7
experiencing continued numbness in her arms, hands, trunk, and glutes, causing difficulty
with gait (although she could stand and walk around). Id. On exam, Petitioner had a left
facial droop, and was unable to lift her left eyebrow or completely close her left eye. Id. at
4. She was prescribed prednisone, eye drops, and an eye patch, and was advised to
continue physical and occupational therapy. Id. at 5. Repeat MRIs (brain and c-spine)
and an EMG were ordered. Id.
An EMG performed on December 28, 2020, revealed “a severe an predominantly
demyelinating polyneuropathy affecting legs greater than arms.” Ex. 5 at 13. Petitioner
followed up with her neurologist on January 4, 2021. Id. at 9. She reported improvement
with her facial symptoms, but that she still struggled with ADLs. Id. Petitioner had also
experienced a fall in a parking lot, which injured her left knee and numbness from her feet
up to her diaphragm and in both hands up to mid-forearm. Id. She continued to be
areflexic. Id. at 10. Although the doctor considered progression to CIDP, he noted that
her symptoms had been persistent and improving, and not progressing. Id. at 11. He
advised her to continue taking gabapentin and to establish care with a neurologist in
Seattle after her imminent move. Id.
On February 5, 2021, Petitioner established care with a new primary care provider
(“PCP”) in Seattle. Ex. 6 at 82-84. Petitioner now reported feeling back to 50% of her
baseline, but noted continued lack of coordination and balance, difficulty with writing,
fatigue, blurry vision, excess tearing in her eyes, pain in her legs, and numbness/tingling
in her hands and feet. Id. at 83-84. On exam, she displayed “some residual left sided
facial droop” and numbness, decreased strength and sensation in her extremities, and a
slightly ataxic gait. Id. at 85-86. She was referred to physical and occupational therapy,
and to sports medicine for evaluation of her knee injury. Id. at 83.
Petitioner established care with a neurologist in Seattle on February 10, 2021. Ex.
6 at 63-66. She was experiencing continued numbness throughout her body, although
she could walk her dog for half a mile and do “normal activity,” but felt tired after standing
for 20 minutes and at the end of the day. Id. at 63. She was cautious with swallowing. Id.
The doctor planned a repeat EMG in one month. Id. at 66
Petitioner followed up with her neurologist on April 28, 2021. Ex. 6 at 76. She
reported that the numbness in hands and feet had improved, but numbness in her face
and mouth had worsened. Id. A repeat EMG on April 30, 2021 was consistent with
“resolving demyelinating peripheral polyneuropathy.” Id. at 78, 90-91.
During PCP visits in 2021 and 2022, Petitioner continued to state that she was
experiencing residual symptoms of GBS, including reduced sensation in her hands,
3

Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 7
fatigue, and left sided facial symptoms, but she did not provide evidence of further
treatment for her GBS sequelae. Ex. 9 at 36-37; Ex. 6 at 67.
III. 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 awarding such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the 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 (citing 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 that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field
of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by a decision from
4

Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 5 of 7
several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl.
2013). Graves maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards into
a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared to the
most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 589-90. Instead, Graves assessed
pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering awards
within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the Vaccine
Program. Id. at 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely cuts off
higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible awards
as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not controlling of the
outcome in this case, it offers a reasoned understanding of the issues involved in pain
and suffering calculations.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, Petitioner’s awareness of her 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 GBS. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and
duration of Petitioner’s injury.
Petitioner’s medical records reveal a moderate case of GBS, with a treatment
course that was not exceedingly intrusive compared to other cases. Petitioner was
diagnosed fairly quickly after an EKG, MRI, and two lumbar punctures. She had a six-day
hospital stay with five IVIG infusions before she was discharged to her home. She did not
require subsequent inpatient rehabilitation, but received various therapies in her home for
approximately 2.5 months more. Petitioner stopped treating her GBS about six months
after her vaccination, but the medical records confirm that she suffered continuing
numbness in her extremities, fatigue, and difficult facial symptoms for approximately
another year.
Petitioner cited four cases in her brief, with pain and suffering awards ranging from
$155,000.00 to $165,000.00. Mot. at 5-6. Overall, these comparable cases were more
relevant to my determination herein than those offered by Respondent. The most helpful
of Petitioner’s cases was Robinson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0088V,
2020 WL 5820967, *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2020), where the petitioner was
awarded $160,000.00 in pain and suffering after a six-day hospital stay, five IVIG
infusions, and 20 sessions of outpatient physical therapy after discharge. That petitioner
also endured several diagnostic tests, including two lumbar punctures. Id. at *2. She also
did not require inpatient rehabilitation, recovered quickly, and experienced mild sequela.
Id. at 2-3. The Robinson petitioner, however, endured significant distress at the beginning
of her treatment course as doctors struggled to diagnose her, causing her “to question
whether she would survive or not,” and her course was complicated by tachycardia. Id. at
5

Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 6 of 7
*2, 6. She also experienced disturbances in parenting her young children. Ms. Lemon, in
contrast, was diagnosed and treated quickly, did not suffer significant complications,3 and
did not suffer major life disturbances (such as to parenting or employment), suggesting
that a lower award is appropriate.
Weil v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 2023 WL 1778281, No. 21-0831V
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 6, 2023) is another helpful (and more recent) case. That
petitioner was awarded $140,000.00 in pain and suffering after being hospitalized for five
days, receiving IVIG treatment, and spending 20 days in inpatient rehab, after which he
recovered quickly. Id. at *1-2. He had outpatient physical therapy for approximately one
month and used a walker after his return home. Id. Although Ms. Lemon did not spend
time in inpatient rehabilitation, she endured several more diagnostic tests than the Weil
petitioner, had more outpatient therapies, including speech therapy for her facial
symptoms, and suffered ongoing sequela for significantly longer than did the Weil
petitioner, suggesting that a slightly higher award is warranted.
The appropriateness of a future pain and suffering component is also disputed.
Petitioner argues that her ongoing GBS symptoms justify an award of future pain and
suffering for the remainder of Petitioner’s life expectancy. Br. at 8. However, it is common
for petitioners to experience ongoing symptoms of GBS, such as numbness and fatigue,
even with a good recovery. Although certainly Petitioner continues to experience
sequelae and has not fully returned to her pre-GBS baseline, she has not provided
sufficient evidence to support her claim for future pain and suffering (such as evidence
showing ongoing treatment or significant impacts on employment). In fact, Petitioner has
not provided evidence of any medical treatment for her GBS symptoms in the recent past,
nor has she provided evidence of current sequelae that are more severe than those
experienced in many GBS cases.
After considering the entire record and the parties’ arguments, I find that
$145,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and
appropriate in this case, with no future component awarded.
V. Award for Past Unreimbursed Expenses
Petitioner requests $4,370.00 in past unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses.
Br. at 1. Respondent does not dispute this sum, and therefore Petitioner is awarded it
without adjustment. Resp. at 7.
3 Petitioner did complain of shortness of breath and chest tightness during her acute illness, but she did
not require any specialized treatment, such as intubation.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00701-UNJ Document 35 Filed 06/25/24 Page 7 of 7
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$149,370.00 (representing $145,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering and
$4,370.00 for past unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses) in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner, Kristina Lemon. This amount represents compensation for all
damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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.
7