VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00406
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00406
Petitioner: Barbara Glover
Filed: 2023-03-23
Decided: 2025-07-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-23
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 145000

AI-assisted case summary:
Barbara Glover, a 76-year-old retired woman, filed a petition on March 23, 2023, alleging that she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on November 23, 2020. The respondent conceded entitlement on January 26, 2024, agreeing that Petitioner satisfied the criteria for GBS following a seasonal flu vaccine as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. The case then proceeded to a damages decision, as the parties could not agree on the amount for actual pain and suffering. Petitioner sought $200,000.00, while Respondent proposed $100,000.00. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent's counsel was Madylan Louise Yarc. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the case. Petitioner received the influenza vaccine on November 23, 2020. Eleven days later, on December 4, 2020, she awoke with tingling, numbness, and weakness in her legs. She was admitted to the hospital for seven days, where she was diagnosed with and treated for GBS with IVIg and physical therapy. During her hospitalization, she experienced pain, mild Bell's palsy, and required pain medication. Her post-hospitalization recovery involved home health services and physical therapy. Petitioner reported ongoing symptoms such as weakness, paresthesias, and restless legs syndrome (RLS). The Special Master reviewed medical records, affidavits, and party assertions, considering prior GBS awards. The Special Master found that Petitioner achieved a substantial recovery from GBS within approximately eleven months, around her last neurology evaluation. At that time, she had mild residual symptoms such as sensory ataxia and decreased deep tendon reflexes, which were likely attributable to GBS. The Special Master noted that these residual symptoms are common in GBS cases and that Petitioner managed them herself without significant falls or further skilled therapies. The Special Master also found that Petitioner's paresthesias had disappeared by her last neurology evaluation and that any recurrence could be part of her pre-existing RLS, as no medical provider or Petitioner suggested her GBS worsened her RLS. The Special Master determined that Petitioner's GBS course was not uniquely traumatic or extensive in rehabilitation, with active treatment lasting less than a year. The Special Master compared Ms. Glover's case to the Paveglio case, which awarded $145,000.00 for pain and suffering to a retiree with a relatively straightforward and short hospital course, one round of IVIg, and no inpatient rehabilitation. Based on this comparison and the record as a whole, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Petitioner a lump sum of $145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, to be paid via ACH deposit to Petitioner's counsel's IOLTA account. This award represents compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Barbara Glover, aged 76, received an influenza vaccine on November 23, 2020. She subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), which is listed as a Table injury. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner met the criteria for GBS following the flu vaccine. The case proceeded to a damages determination for actual pain and suffering. Petitioner alleged a moderate to mild GBS course, with initial symptoms of tingling, numbness, and weakness in her legs eleven days post-vaccination, leading to a seven-day hospitalization with IVIg and physical therapy. She experienced pain, mild Bell's palsy, and required pain medication. Post-hospitalization, she received home health services and physical therapy, reporting ongoing weakness, paresthesias, and restless legs syndrome (RLS). The Special Master found that Petitioner achieved substantial recovery within approximately eleven months, with mild residual symptoms (sensory ataxia, decreased reflexes) likely attributable to GBS, but noted that her paresthesias resolved and ongoing symptoms could be related to her pre-existing RLS. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, comparing the case to Paveglio, which awarded the same amount for a retiree with a straightforward GBS course. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent's counsel was Madylan Louise Yarc. The decision date was July 24, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00406-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/29/2024) regarding 18 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 20 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0406V
BARBARA GLOVER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 29, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Madylan Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 23, 2023, Barbara Glover (“Petitioner”) 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-Barré syndrome
(“GBS”), a Table injury, as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November
23, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
On January 26, 2024, 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
effective Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
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 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 20 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 2
(“QAI”) for GBS following the administration of a seasonal flu vaccine. Id. at 7 (citing 42
C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), (c)(15)).
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_23-vv-00406-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-24
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/23/2025) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0406V
BARBARA GLOVER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 23, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Madylan Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 23, 2023, Barbara Glover 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”),
causally related to an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 23, 2020.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Office of Special Masters’ Special Processing
Unit (the “SPU”).
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 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 2 of 8
After Respondent conceded entitlement in January 2024, the parties were unable
to agree on the sole damages component of actual (past) pain and suffering, and the
parties briefed the issue. Brief filed Sept. 26, 2024, ECF No. 29 (seeking $200,000.00 for
a “severe and long-lasting bout of GBS” and a “non-contributory past medical history”);
Response filed Oct. 28, 2024, ECF No. 30 (proposing $100,000.00 on the grounds that
Petitioner’s GBS was more limited, and her residual symptoms may be attributable to
preexisting restless legs syndrome (“RLS”)); Reply filed Nov. 27, 2024, ECF No. 31). For
the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to a past/actual pain
and suffering award of $145,000.00.
I. Legal Standard
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
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.3
II. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The parties agree, and my
own review of the evidence confirms, that at all times Petitioner was a competent adult
with no impairments that would impact awareness of the injury. Therefore, I analyze
principally the injury’s severity and duration.
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
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)).
2

Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 3 of 8
and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I ultimately base my
determination on the circumstances of this case.
The record shows that upon receiving the at-issue flu vaccine on November 23,
2020, Petitioner was 76 years old and retired. Her preexisting diagnoses included restless
legs syndrome (“RLS”)4 and heart disease. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 86, 181, 223, 249, 271.
Petitioner’s initial GBS course was moderate to mild. Eleven (11) days post-
vaccination, on December 4, 2020, she awoke with tingling, numbness and weakness in
her legs; she called paramedics, who ruled out a stroke. Ex. 2 at 89. She saw her primary
care provider (“PCP”) later that day, id. at 90, and was then admitted for a seven-day
inpatient hospitalization (from December 4 – 11, 2020), during which she was promptly
diagnosed with and treated for GBS. She underwent a chest x-ray, EKG, bloodwork, head
and brain CT scans, head and cervical spine MRIs, intravenous administration of
lorazepam (Ativan), five days of IVIg, and inpatient physical therapy (“PT”) and
occupational therapy (“OT”). See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 81 – 88, 96 – 97, 135 – 44.5
During the hospitalization, Petitioner reported pain in her neck, shoulders, and
arms which was not relieved by Tylenol or a muscle relaxant, prompting prescriptions for
oxycodone and gabapentin (Neurontin). Ex. 6 at 123 – 24, 141, 157, 355. She developed
“mild” right-sided facial swelling, numbness, and drooping which was assessed as Bell’s
palsy and treated with local eye care, oral steroids, and (precautionary) antiviral therapy.6
Id. at 164. A hospital neurologist attributed Petitioner’s facial symptoms to her diagnosed
GBS, and expected both to improve over time. Id. at 191. On December 9th, EMG/NCV
4 The Response at 13 cited a Mayo Clinic webpage, which provides that RLS (also known as Willis-Ekbom
disease) is characterized by “compelling, unpleasant” sensations described as “crawling, creeping, puling,
throbbing, aching, itching, [or] electric.” The sensations typically manifest bilaterally, in the legs – but also
sometimes affect the arms. The sensations cause a compulsion to move the affected extremities. RLS can
disrupt sleep, which interferes with daily activities. The condition’s etiology is not fully understood, but it is
more common with increasing age; more common in women than in men; and sometimes occurs with other
conditions including peripheral neuropathies and iron deficiency. Restless Legs Syndrome, Mayo Clinic,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/restless-legs-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20377168
(last accessed June 20, 2025).
It is also noted that Petitioner’s post-vaccination records also suggest of history of fibromyalgia, which was
not found in the pre-vaccination records. It is unclear whether Petitioner and/or the medical providers were
conflating RLS with fibromyalgia.
5 Petitioner did not undergo a lumbar puncture because it would have required stopping her anticoagulant
medication. Ex. 6 at 107 – 08.
6 Bell’s Palsy has been linked to various viruses including herpes zoster. Bell’s Palsy, Mayo Clinic,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bells-palsy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370028 (last
accessed June 20, 2025).
3

Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 4 of 8
studies indicated a sensorimotor demyelinating peripheral neuropathy consistent with
early GBS. Ex. 5 at 14. December 9th also marked the last inpatient neurology follow-up,
which indicates Petitioner’s “marked improvement” upon completing IVIg treatment and
“no need for further treatment” beyond rehabilitative therapies. Id. at 193. Petitioner
complained of ongoing diffuse pain, but she declined a higher dose of gabapentin
(300mg, rather than just 100mg) at night due to apparent hallucinations “in the past.” Id.
at 188, 191.7
That same day, an internal medicine doctor newly prescribed duloxetine
(Cymbalta)8 “to help with neuropathic pain as well as fibromyalgia.”9 Ex. 6 at 189. By the
last inpatient PT session on December 11, 2020, Petitioner was progressing towards her
goals, but still required a rolling walker and a family member standing by. Id. at 226 – 28.
That same day, she was discharged with a final diagnosis of GBS. Id. at 98. Petitioner
declined referral to inpatient rehabilitation due to concerns about COVID-19 exposure
(specifically because she would have had to share a bedroom) and she had “improved
enough that she preferred to return home with home health services.” Id. at 98, 148, 225.
Petitioner’s post-hospitalization GBS course was also somewhat mild. In mid-
December 2020, she was confirmed to be weak and reliant on a rolling walker – but also
deemed safe and independent within her single-family home. She did not receive any
formal outpatient PT or OT, only home exercises. Ex. 2 at 84 – 87, Ex. 3 at 24, 34, 51.
But over the next three months, she received 17 home health sessions focused on
improving ambulation, identifying fall risks, and managing her anticoagulant medication.
Ex. 3 at 189.
7 The December 2020 hospitalization records do not contemporaneously document any hallucinations.
8 The Response at n. 1 cited a Mayo Clinic webpage which provides that duloxetine (Cymbalta) is an
antidepressant; however it is also prescribed for patients with pain caused by nerve damage, muscle pain,
and joint stiffness. See Duloxetine, Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/duloxetine-
oral-route/description/drg-20067247 (last accessed June 20, 2025).
The Response at n. 1 also suggests that Petitioner “had been previously prescribed [duloxetine (Cymbalta)]
for her restless legs syndrome,” (citing Ex. 2 at 86) (emphasis added). But the cited December 15, 2020
primary care record only provides that Petitioner would “continue” taking the medication, and the record
could be reasonably understood to just continue the treatment initiated in during the previous week’s
hospitalization.
9 As noted infra at n. 4, the pre-vaccination records do not confirm a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, only RLS.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 5 of 8
By a January 12, 2021 PCP follow-up, Petitioner no longer needed assistive
devices to walk; she felt a lot better, but still tired easily. Ex. 2 at 78. The PCP recorded
that Petitioner “fe[lt] ‘blessed’ that she ha[d] no residuals,” and “her Bell’s palsy ha[d]
resolved as well.” Id. A Cymbalta dose reduction was planned. Id.
At a February 2021 outpatient neurology initial evaluation, Petitioner reported that
she had discontinued Cymbalta because of cognitive and sleep disturbances, and then
developed new neuropathic pain and numbness in her hands, which the neurologist
attributed to GBS. Ex. 5 at 54, 62. “She [Petitioner] also note[d] subjective worsening of
her RLS, and her husband adds that her nocturnal limb movements, consistent with
PLMS,10 are significantly increased as well.” Id. at 54. The neurologist assessed
Petitioner’s RLS as “severe.” Id. at 61.
On March 3, 2021, Petitioner underwent a repeat EMG of the left arm and leg, with
findings interpreted as “abnormal, with electrophysiologic evidence of a sensory and
motor peripheral neuropathy with some demyelinating features.” Ex. 5 at 24. The EMG
findings were “compatible with [Petitioner’s] prior [GBS] that worsened after the
December 9, 2020 study, and then subsequently improved.” Id.; see also Ex. 2 at 63
(March 10th PCP appointment yielding prescription for a different nerve pain medication
– pregabalin (Lyrica)); Ex. 3 at 182, 187 – 89 (April 9th home health care discharge, with
all goals met).
On April 8, 2021, the neurologist assessed that Petitioner had ongoing painful
paresthesias and skin sensitivity for which she would titrate Lyrica and try a ketamine
compounding cream. Ex. 5 at 51. Petitioner also had “mild residual balance difficulties
consistent with sensory ataxia,” posing a fall risk. Id. The neurologist felts that she was
“moving in the right direction” in her recovery from GBS, and future follow-ups would be
with a physician’s assistant (“PA”). Id.
On July 20, 2021, a neurology PA recorded that Petitioner had ongoing
paresthesias not managed with Lyrica (which had caused hallucinations) or ketamine
cream (which had caused tachycardia). Ex. 5 at 37. Petitioner also reported being “very
restless at night and does not sleep well,” due to RLS. Id. at 37, 40. Petitioner was offered
Carbatrol and Trileptal for the painful paresthesias, but declined (noting her inability to
tolerate five previous pain medications). Id. at 42. She was prescribed Clonazepam for
10 Another Mayo Clinic webpage (not cited by Respondent, located independently by the Court) explains
that about 80% to 90% of people who have RLS also experience their legs twitching or kicking when they’re
asleep. This is called periodic limb movements of sleep (“PLMS”). Restless Legs Syndrome, Mayo Clinic,
https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/living-well/restless-legs-syndrome/ (last accessed June 20, 2025).
5

Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 6 of 8
her RLS. Id. She would also defer vaccinations until 12 months post-GBS (e.g., for about
four more months). Id.
October 19, 2021 marked Petitioner’s last neurology appointment. A nurse and a
PA separately recorded Petitioner’s report that her paresthesias (numbness, tingling, and
pain) were gone. Ex. 5 at 33, 30. Petitioner also reiterated her complaints of restlessness,
poor sleeping, and fatigue; the nurse suggested that “fatigue could be associated with
GBS.” Id. at 33. But the PA seemed to disagree - adding a new diagnosis of insomnia,
noting that the previously prescribed Clonazepam had not been effective in managing
Petitioner’s sleep and restlessness, offering a new prescription for Trazodone, and
suggesting an endocrinology consult. Id. at 35. The physical examination was only
positive for mild sensory ataxia and decreased deep tendon reflexes in the right arm. Id.,
see also Ex. 6 at 5 – 47 (cardiology encounters briefly mentioning history of GBS).
The last primary care medical record is from January 2022. Petitioner endorsed
weakness, dizziness, and gait unsteadiness – but there are no GBS-related exam
findings, assessment, or treatment plan. Ex. 2 at 12 – 15. But in an April 10, 2024 “to
whom it may concern” letter, the PCP recounts Petitioner’s GBS initial course and states:
“She continues to have weakness in her legs, after 3 years, which will most likely be
lifelong. Symptoms could remain the same or could possibly worsen… She is having
difficulty sleeping related to her sxs [symptoms].” Ex. 8 at 2. The PCP’s letter does not
,confirm the last time she actually evaluated Petitioner, or address her preexisting RLS.
Petitioner does not address these questions either, in her two affidavits attributing
ongoing leg pain, stiffness, and fatigue to her GBS. Exs. 7, 9. Accordingly, those later
statements are much less persuasive than the medical records.
Overall, I agree with Respondent that the medical records depict Ms. Glover as
achieving a substantial recovery from her GBS within approximately eleven months –
around the time of her last neurology evaluation. At this time she was documented to be
experiencing only mild sensory ataxia, and decreased deep tendon reflexes in the right
arm, which are most likely attributable to GBS. But such residual symptoms are seen in
many GBS cases, and Ms. Glover was able to manage them herself (as the evidence
does not document any significant falls, and she did not seek any further skilled
therapies).
Moreover at her last neurology evaluation Ms. Glover reported that her
(presumably GBS-related) paresthesia had disappeared. Those symptoms were not
documented for several years thereafter, and to the extent that they were still present or
recurred, they could be part of her preexisting RLS. No medical provider (or Petitioner’s
briefing) has suggested that Ms. Glover’s GBS caused a worsening of her RLS, and I
6

Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 7 of 8
have previously distinguished between the two conditions in another GBS pain and
suffering determination. Taylor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-100V, 2021 WL
1346059, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 12, 2021) (concluding that a petitioner’s
purported GBS residual effects were instead attributable to RLS); see also Mayo Clinic
webpage cited infra n. 4 (providing that RLS symptoms “common[ly]… get better and
worse,” but “ten[d] to get worse with age”).
For those reasons, Petitioner has not substantiated her request for $200,000.00 –
or even the $180,000.00 awarded in her cited cases.11 She has not described a uniquely-
traumatic initial course12 or extensive rehabilitation.13 Her active treatment course
spanned less than one year. She has not shown disruptions in employment or physically
demanding pursuits,14 beyond typical activities of daily living and time spent with loved
ones, and the fact of her preexisting RLS likely explains some of her ongoing symptoms
in her legs and resulting fatigue. See also Response at 13 – 19 (generally arguing that
Petitioner’s GBS was comparatively less severe).
At the same time, Respondent has not adequately defended his valuation of
$100,000.00 - which would be appropriate only for the mildest instances of GBS. See
Ashcraft, 2025 WL 882752, at *3. He cited only one reasoned opinion, Granville (awarding
$92,500.00).15 But compared to the Granville petitioner, Ms. Glover was hospitalized for
two additional days; she relied on a rolling walker for a month; she had eleven more
11 Johnson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
20, 2018); Fedewa v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. March 26, 2020); McCray v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0277V, 2021 WL 4618549 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2021); Kresl v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0518V, 2024 WL 1931498
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 1, 2024).
12 Compare, e.g., Fedewa, 2020 WL1915138, at *5 (noting that the petitioner sought medical attention three
times before his hospital admission, and then reported difficulty with his diagnostic testing and IVIg
treatment); Kresl, 2024 WL 1931498, at *2 (transfer to the intensive care unit due to worsening weakness
and “encephalopathic” mental status changes).
13 Johnson, 2018 WL 5024012, at *7 – 8 (in-home and outpatient physical therapies, followed by 45 personal
trainer sessions); Fedewa, 2020 WL1915138, at *5 (11 inpatient and 22 outpatient rehabilitation stays);
Kresl, 2024 WL 1931498, at *3 (35-day inpatient rehabilitation for a “quadriplegic-like picture,” followed by
nearly 50 outpatient therapy sessions).
14 Johnson, 2018 WL 5024012, at *7 (inability to work as a school bus driver and school librarian); Fedewa,
2020 WL1915138, at *6 (return to work after three months with financial pressures and lifting restrictions,
as well as reduced farming, biking, swimming, and service projects); McCray, 2021 WL 4618549, at *4
(inability to resume part-time employment); Kresl, 2024 WL 1931498, at *4 (very active lifestyle and part-
time employment prior to GBS).
15 Granville v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 64413388 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 30, 2023).
7

Case 1:23-vv-00406-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/24/25 Page 8 of 8
outpatient therapy sessions; she attempted various pain medications over roughly six
months; her GBS recovery was supervised by a neurology specialists for several more
months; and she presented better evidence of GBS residuals (specifically decreased
reflexes in one arm, and ataxia) compared to the Granville petitioner who conceded the
fact of her full recovery, Granville, 2023 WL 64413388, at *3.
I find that Ms. Glover’s GBS pain and suffering was more similar to that of the
claimant from the recent Paveglio case (awarding $145,000.00), which also featured a
retiree who endured a relatively straightforward and short hospital course, one round of
IVIg with improvement, and no inpatient rehabilitation. That claimant did not have
prominent neuropathic pain, but he completed more outpatient therapy and was
monitored by a neurologist longer.16 The cases are therefore roughly equivalent, making
that pain and suffering award a good comparable for this case.
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $145,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for this Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.17
Conclusion
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $145,000.00 (for actual
pain and suffering), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
16 Paveglio v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-0739V, 2025 WL 1326313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr.
3, 2025)/
17 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)).
18 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