VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00591
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00591
Petitioner: Stacy Rodriguez
Filed: 2023-04-26
Decided: 2025-07-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-09-23
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 146162.85

AI-assisted case summary:
On April 26, 2023, Stacy Rodriguez, then 53, filed a petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome after an influenza vaccination on September 23, 2021. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that his illness met the Table criteria for GBS after seasonal flu vaccination, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted entitlement on June 11, 2024.

The damages decision gives a fuller account of Mr. Rodriguez’s course. He worked as a security guard and had preexisting iron deficiency anemia and obesity. His GBS diagnosis was delayed through several emergency and other evaluations before a November 9, 2021 neurology assessment correctly identified GBS. His acute findings included absent deep tendon and patellar reflexes, a wide-based gait, a positive Romberg sign, and decreased sensation in his hands and feet. He was hospitalized for three days, received a two-day course of IVIG and physical therapy, and was discharged home. He initially used a cane but later met therapy goals without assistive devices.

His residual symptoms were described as mild but persistent, including numbness and tingling in the hands and feet and balance issues. Later neurology records continued to endorse GBS residuals, and an April 2023 EMG/NCV study showed a mild non-length-dependent polyneuropathy with acquired segmental demyelination. Mr. Rodriguez sought $160,000.00 for pain and suffering; respondent argued for less. On July 14, 2025, the Special Master awarded $146,162.85, consisting of $145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,162.85 for unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Age 53 adult; influenza vaccine September 23, 2021; Table Guillain-Barré syndrome. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded Table GBS. Acute course: delayed diagnosis, absent reflexes, wide-based gait, positive Romberg, decreased hand/foot sensation, 3-day hospitalization, 2-day IVIG, PT, cane initially. Residual numbness/tingling and balance symptoms persisted; April 2023 EMG/NCV mild non-length-dependent polyneuropathy with acquired segmental demyelination. Award $146,162.85 = $145,000.00 pain/suffering + $1,162.85 expenses. Chief SM Corcoran July 14, 2025. Petition filed April 26, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00591-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/11/2024) regarding 21 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00591-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0591V
STACY RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 11, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Eleanor Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 26, 2023, Stacy Rodriguez 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 he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”),
a Table injury, as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 23, 2021.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On June 10, 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 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-00591-UNJ Document 23 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 2
(“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
apparent alternative cause. Id. at 6 (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-00591-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-14
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/23/2025) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0591V
STACY RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Eleanor Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 26, 2023, Stacy Rodriguez 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 he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”),
causally related to an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 23, 2021.
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-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 2 of 7
Respondent conceded that Petitioner should be compensated for a Table flu/GBS
injury in June 2024, but the parties were unable to resolve damages, so I ordered briefing
on the matter. Brief filed Dec. 2, 2024, ECF No. 29 (seeking $160,000.00 for past pain
and suffering); Response filed Jan. 31, 2025, ECF No. 30 (advocating for “less than”
Petitioner’s number); Reply filed Feb. 18, 2025, ECF No. 31. For the reasons set forth
below, I award $145,000.00 for Petitioner’s past/actual pain and suffering.
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
and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I ultimately base my
determination on the circumstances of this case.
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-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 3 of 7
The evidence shows that upon receiving the at-issue flu vaccine on September 23,
2021, Petitioner was 53 years old and employed as a security guard. His preexisting
diagnoses included iron deficiency anemia and obesity. See e.g., Ex. 2 at 51, 75.
Petitioner’s GBS initial course was typical if not mild, when compared to that of
other individuals suffering that same condition. He endured a delay in diagnosis (with
GBS not recognized at the first two emergency department evaluations and two
chiropractic sessions). See generally Ex. 3 at 16 – 91; Ex. 4 at 75 – 76. Ex. 7 at 5 – 10.
But a November 9, 2021 neurology outpatient evaluation correctly identified GBS onset
symptoms of absent deep tendon reflexes in all four extremities; absent patellar reflexes;
a wide-based gait; a positive Romberg sign;4 and decreased sensation in the hands and
feet. Ex. 4 at 25 – 28.
That same day at the neurologist’s urging, Petitioner followed up in the emergency
room and was admitted for further evaluation (including a lumbar puncture, and
cerebrospinal fluid analysis) and treatment (primarily a two-day course of IVIg, and
physical therapy (“PT”) sessions). Petitioner did not suffer any severe nadir of GBS;
interventions; complications; or indication for inpatient rehabilitation or long-term pain
measures, and he was discharged from the hospital to his home after just three days, on
November 12, 2021. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 124 – 27 (hospital neurology consult), 181 – 86
(hospital discharge summary);5 compare Ashcraft, 2025 WL 882752, at *3 (listing
possible elements of a more “severe” GBS initial medical course).
Petitioner’s GBS residual symptoms were documented to be mild, but persistent.
First, from November 15 – December 2, 2021, he underwent six PT sessions and one OT
session focused on improving his balance, gait, endurance, transfers, and self-care.
Those therapies were provided through home health and noted his initial reliance on a
cane. But the discharge summary indicates that Petitioner had zero pain, required no
assistive devices, and had achieved all goals (despite reported ongoing numbness and
tingling in his hands and feet). See generally Ex. 5.
Petitioner also followed up periodically with the outpatient neurologist who had first
identified his GBS. A November 19, 2021 record reflects that Petitioner was “extremely
pleased” with his hospital care; his IVIg treatment had delivered a 50% improvement in
symptoms; and the neurologist was content with a “watch, wait, and see approach” over
4 A Romberg sign is defined as “swaying of the body or falling when standing with the feet close together
and the eyes closed.” Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, Romberg Sign,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=106448 (last accessed June 20, 2025).
5 Petitioner was discharged from the hospital with a limited prescription for oxycodone-acetaminophen
(Percocet) to take as needed for acute pain, Ex. 3 at 26. But subsequent records indicate that he had zero
pain and was not taking any pain medication. Ex. 5 at 34, 38, 61; Ex. 4 at 22.
3

Case 1:23-vv-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 4 of 7
the next few weeks. Ex. 4 at 22 – 24. A December 8, 2021 record confirms that Petitioner
was progressively recovering from GBS, he had been able to walk 6,000 steps in a day
despite some “remnant complaints of paresthesia,” and he would resume working (as a
security guard at a cancer hospital) without restrictions. Id. at 21, 60. Petitioner was
instructed not to receive further flu vaccines due to his GBS history. Ex. 4 at 59; Ex. 2 at
27. On January 5, 2022, the neurologist prescribed a trial of Cymbalta, to replace
Petitioner’s use of his wife’s gabapentin, for complaints of “a crawling sensation in his
legs, occurring more prominently in the evening.” Ex. 4 at 18 – 20. On March 24, 2022,
Petitioner reported a one-month history of “flare-ups” of hand swelling, and paresthesia
in his hands and feet. Id. at 15. The neurologist endorsed these symptoms as GBS
residual effects, which “can take an extended period of time to resolve, if ever.” Id. But in
April 2022, the neurologist interpreted his own EMG/NCV studies as showing no evidence
of neuropathy, and he did not offer any further treatment – noting Petitioner’s feeling that
past prescription medications (e.g., Cymbalta?) had been “ineffective.” Id. at 12 – 14, 39
– 58. In May 2022, Petitioner received a single chiropractic adjustment to address
“occasional” pain throughout his spine, with associated pain, “pins and needles,” and
numbness radiating to his hands, and numbness in his feet. Ex. 7 at 11 – 13.
After roughly an eight-month gap (at least in record documentation of treatment),6
in mid-January 2023, Petitioner attended an initial evaluation with a neuromuscular
specialist at the University of Southern Florida. Ex. 8 at 12. The record documented
“intermittent paresthesias in both of his knees… about 2 – 3 times per week, and typically
last[ing] for 5 – 10 minutes”; difficulty extending his left hand and tying fishing knots; and
deficits in sensation, reflexes, and gait. Id. at 15 – 16. The specialist tentatively assessed
that Petitioner had suffered a “very mild Guillain-Barré syndrome” with residual nerve
damage “possibl[y]… exacerbat[ed]” by his anemia. Id. at 16.
In April 2023, the neuromuscular specialist conducted repeat EMG/NCV studies,
which read as “mildly abnormal,” showing a “mild, non-length dependent polyneuropathy
with features of acquired segmental demyelination” particularly affecting the left median
and ulnar nerves. Ex. 8 at 21.7 The specialist maintained the assessment of GBS residual
nerve damage, adding that “some of [Petitioner’s] symptoms may have been exacerbated
by anemia which has recently improved [with iron infusions], as well as be attributable to
osteoarthritis in his hands.” Id. at 10. The neuromuscular specialist did not offer any
6 Of note, the last-filed records from primary care or any specialists at the VA are from February 2022, and
the VA clinic supplied that batch of records in May 2022, Ex. 2.
7 Compared to the April 2022 EMG/NCV studies conducted by a local neurologist, the April 2023 EMG/NCV
studies conducted by the neuromuscular specialist appear to be more thorough, specifically including the
median and ulnar nerves which were found to be abnormal on the latter studies. Compare Ex. 4 at 39 – 58;
Ex. 8 at 21 – 25.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 5 of 7
treatment – only recommending follow-up EMG/NCV studies and consultation, id., which
apparently have not occurred. A November 2023 cardiology appointment (as well as a
June 2024 neurology follow-up evaluation) document ongoing, “mild” weakness and
balance issues from GBS, but no further treatment. Petitioner mentioned that he did not
want steroid treatments because he had recently achieved a significant weight loss with
the prescription medication Mounjaro, but he was interested in hyperbaric oxygen
therapy. Ex. 10 at 7 – 9, 4 – 6 (organized chronologically).
The evidence thus supports the conclusion that Petitioner has ongoing sensation,
balance, and stamina issues which likely impacted his daily life for three or more years
since his GBS onset. But several treating providers characterized those symptoms as
mild, and Petitioner has opted to manage them conservatively – with only intermittent
reevaluations, and no particular treatment after his trial of Cymbalta (apparently
discontinued within seven months post-vaccination). Neither his medical records nor his
affidavit (Ex. 9) identify extenuating or long-term impacts on his employment or on
personal obligations (e.g., to children or other family members).
Thus, the amount of any pain and suffering award should fall somewhere within
the range of “typical” GBS cases, which very often feature long-term residual symptoms
but not necessarily ongoing care. Ashcraft, 2025 WL 882752, at *8. In advocating for an
award of “less than $160,000.00,” Respondent noted one treater’s concern that unrelated
conditions might explain “some” of Petitioner’s ongoing complaints. Response at 1, 6,
citing Ex. 8 at 10. But that does not equate to preponderant evidence of a wholly unrelated
explanation – because Petitioner was only assessed with osteoarthritis in his hands
(which obviously would not explain decreased sensation and weakness in his legs, or
poor balance). And even after his anemia was treated with iron infusions, the symptoms
persisted.
Respondent also points to a reasoned opinion awarding $92,500.00 for past pain
and suffering. See Geschwindner v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1558V, 2022
WL 22942770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 11, 2022), and 2024 WL 938952 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 5, 2024). But true head-to-head comparison to that case is not possible, as
Petitioner correctly notes (Reply at 4 and n. 2). The special master in that case later
concluded that the claimant’s former attorney had abandoned her during the case’s
damages phase (specifically failing to file complete evidence, or any damages briefing),
which warranted relief from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60(b)(6). The original damages
determination was withdrawn, and after consideration of additional damages evidence,
Respondent proffered an additional $27,500.00, resulting in a total past pain and suffering
award of $120,000.00. Geschwindner thus involves peculiar procedural facts that render
it a poor comparison case – for virtually any other context.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 6 of 7
Respondent also cited one $92,500.00 award from SPU.8 But that case involved
only eight months of medical record documentation of GBS, and the relevant petitioner
agreed that she had achieved a full recovery. A five-figure award for pain and suffering
due to GBS will be rare, appropriate only for the mildest circumstances. See also Ashcraft,
2025 WL 882752, at *3.
Other cases are more instructive. The first is Shankar (awarding $135,000.00)9,
cited in Response at 12. That claimant, as here, had a rather typical initial medical course
followed by a good recovery, disclaiming any need for assistive devices or long-term pain
medications10 and returning to work within roughly two months post-vaccination. The
Shankar petitioner’s medical course was somewhat more involved (with an eight-day
hospitalization, seven days of IVIg, and nine days of inpatient rehabilitation), but his
subsequent treatment gaps were lengthy, and repeat electrodiagnostic studies were
“unremarkable for any primary neurogenic etiology.” 2022 WL 2196407, at *2 – 3. While
Mr. Rodriguez’s initial medical course was shorter, he has presented better evidence of
long-term injury (including abnormal EMG/NCV findings 19 months post-vaccination, and
his neurologists’ subsequent endorsement of ongoing GBS residuals). Overall, the
comparison to Shankar is not unreasonable.
Also instructive is W.B. (awarding $155,000.00),11 cited in Brief at 14. That case
also involved a limited initial medical course, followed by substantial improvement within
the first two months. But I also accepted the W.B. petitioner’s GBS-related leg weakness
caused a fall and reinjury of his shoulder, warranting 29 PT sessions over the next nine
months. 2020 WL 5509686, at *2 – 3, 5; see also Response at 9 – 10. Mr. Rodriguez has
not alleged any similar falls or secondary injuries, see generally Brief and Reply, and he
has self-managed his GBS residuals albeit over a longer period of time.
Based on comparison to Shankar and W.B., and my review of this case’s evidence,
a fair and appropriate award for pain and suffering in this case is $145,000.00.
8 Granville v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 6441388 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
30, 2023).
9 Shankar v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1382V, 2022 WL 2196407 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
5, 2022).
10 Respondent stated that the Shankar award depended on a finding of “significant pain throughout… the
injury course,” Response at 12, but the decision states only that the Shankar petitioner was discharged
from the hospital with prescription pain medications – not how long those medications were maintained.
And the Shankar petitioner’s long-term complaints were about decreased sensation and stamina, 2022 WL
2196407, at *2 – 3.
11 W.B. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1634V, 2020 WL 5509686 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7,
2020).
6

Case 1:23-vv-00591-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/14/25 Page 7 of 7
Conclusion
I hereby award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $146,162.85 (representing
compensation in the amounts of $145,000.00 for pain and suffering12 and $1,162.85
for actual unreimbursable expenses13) 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 Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12 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)).
13 The parties stipulated to the expenses. Brief at 1; Response at n. 2.
14 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