VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00714
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00714
Petitioner: Terry Boyd
Filed: 2023-05-15
Decided: 2025-06-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-24
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 167500

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 15, 2023, Terry Boyd filed a petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome after an influenza vaccination administered on November 24, 2020. Respondent conceded entitlement, stating that Mr. Boyd suffered GBS after the flu vaccine and that there was no evidence the GBS was due to an unrelated factor. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted entitlement on April 8, 2024.

The parties could not resolve damages, so the court held an expedited damages hearing on May 30, 2025. The damages decision described a moderately severe acute GBS phase requiring emergency presentation, hospitalization, IVIG treatment, and inpatient rehabilitation with physical and occupational therapy. Mr. Boyd also received injections for neuropathy from May 2021 through February 2022. His GBS-related treatment lasted roughly 12 to 14 months after discharge, and he described lingering weakness, numbness and coldness in his left hand, and limitations in daily life and retirement activities.

Mr. Boyd requested $175,000.00; respondent proposed $112,500.00. The Special Master found that the injury warranted a higher-than-average GBS award because of the acute treatment and lingering deficits, but that it was not among the most severe cases because Mr. Boyd had a comparatively good recovery and was not left non-ambulatory or permanently disabled. On June 3, 2025, he awarded $167,500.00 for actual pain and suffering.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine November 24, 2020; Table GBS. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded no unrelated cause. Damages evidence: ER presentation, hospitalization, IVIG, inpatient rehab/PT/OT, neuropathy injections May 2021-February 2022, 12-14 months treatment, lingering weakness/numbness/coldness and activity limits. Award $167,500.00 actual pain/suffering after hearing; petitioner sought $175,000, respondent $112,500. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran June 3, 2025. Petition filed May 15, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00714-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/08/2024) regarding 21 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 23 Filed 05/09/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-714V
TERRY BOYD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 8, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 15, 2023, Terry Boyd (“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 he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on November 24, 2020. Pet., ECF
No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more
than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On April 8, 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,
ECF No. 19. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner suffered GBS following
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-00714-UNJ Document 23 Filed 05/09/24 Page 2 of 2
a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a preponderance of the medical
evidence that [P]etitioner’s GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the vaccination.” Id. at
4. Respondent agrees that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.” 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_23-vv-00714-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-08
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/03/2025) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-714V
TERRY BOYD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 3, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 15, 2023, Terry Boyd 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 Guillain Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 24, 2020. Petition at 1, ECF No. 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters,
and although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties could not informally resolve
damages.
For the reasons set forth below, and after hearing argument from the parties, I find
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $167,500.00, for actual pain
and suffering.
1 Because this unpublished Decision 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 (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 (2012).

Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report in April 2024 conceding that Petitioner was
entitled to compensation in this matter. ECF No. 19. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued
on the same day. ECF No. 21. The parties thereafter attempted to informally resolve
damages but were unsuccessful, and subsequently filed briefs setting forth their
competing views. ECF Nos. 26-28. 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
damages issue. ECF No. 30. The parties agreed, and the hearing was held as scheduled
on May 30, 2025.3 ECF No. 31; Min. Entry, docketed May 30, 2025. During the hearing,
I made an oral damages determination. This Decision memorializes those findings and
determinations.
II. 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, petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which 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). 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 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) (“Awards 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 (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 At the end of the hearing held on May 30, 2025, 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 with the case’s
docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 3 of 7
Special masters may consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in a specific
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 also rely on my own
experience adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d
958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated the special masters would
use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of
individual claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering
is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior GBS compensation within SPU. I fully adopt
and hereby incorporate my prior discussions in Sections II and III of Holmberg v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1132V, 2024 WL 4607929, at *3-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 7, 2024).
III. Appropriate Compensation in this Matter
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. Petitioner was a competent
adult with no impairments that would impact his consciousness of his injury. Therefore, I
analyze principally the severity and duration of the injury. When performing this analysis,
I review the record as a whole, including the medical records and affidavits filed, all
assertions made by the parties in written documents, and the parties’ arguments during
the expedited damages hearing.
Petitioner’s medical records and affidavits provide a credible description of his
GBS injury, showing a moderately-severe acute phase requiring presentation at the ER
within roughly one month of vaccination, ultimately resulting in a ten-day hospital stay
(plus another three days for related sequelae, including weakness, constipation, and
abdominal pain). Petitioner’s initial hospitalization included diagnostic procedures (MRIs,
CTs, EKG, lumbar puncture), one five-day course of IVIG, isolation due to a simultaneous
COVID infection, culminating in his discharge to a 29-day (total) in-patient skilled nursing
facility for physical and occupational therapy (“PT/OT”).
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases were assigned to former Chief Special Master
Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief
Special Master.
3

Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 4 of 7
Following discharge from the in-patient nursing facility in January 2021, Petitioner
experienced ongoing numbness and weakness in the bilateral upper and lower
extremities, plus fingertip numbness and neuropathy. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 43. These
symptoms caused Petitioner trouble performing activities of daily living (“ADLs”), including
dressing, picking things up, writing, and feeding himself; he also tired easily. See id.
Because of some of his difficulties with ADLs, as of February 2021, Petitioner’s primary
care provider (“PCP”) recommended use of a shower chair, hand-held shower spray,
bedside commode, and rollator (walker/wheelchair). The evidence shows Petitioner used
some or all of these assisted devices beginning in May 2021 and lasting through
November 2021. Petitioner also treated with at least nine months of weekly B-12
injections for ongoing neuropathy related to his GBS (from May 2021 through February
2022). His GBS-related treatment course lasted for approximately 12-14 months after his
hospital discharge, with his last mention of GBS sequelae in the medical records
occurring on February 14, 2022. Id. at 7.
Although I credit Petitioner’s assertions that he currently continues to experience
ongoing GBS sequelae, including weakness, numbness/coldness in his left hand, and
lack of strength throughout his body, his recovery has been good overall – a fact
supported by his medical records failing to show recommended ongoing treatment after
February 2022 (at the latest). E.g., Ex. 2 at 7-10, 13-17. I further give weight to Petitioner’s
assertions that as a result of his GBS and related sequalae, he experienced some
depression having to rely on his wife for tasks he usually accomplished (Ex. 6 ¶ 15; Ex. 9
¶ 4), as well as a loss of enjoyment of the activities he was looking forward to in retirement
– woodworking and mowing/weeding the yard (Ex. 9 ¶¶ 7-8). Yet, Petitioner’s case is not
as severe as the worst GBS cases wherein petitioners remain non-ambulatory or
significantly disabled.
In his briefings and during the damages hearing, Petitioner cites to a number of
damages decisions involving GBS injuries and highlights the similarities between the
petitioners in those cases and Petitioner. Motion at 6-8; Reply at 1-2.5 Petitioner argues
that an award of $175,000.00 is appropriate in this case. Motion at 1. Petitioner bases
this request on his lengthy hospitalization (including five days of IVIG and other diagnostic
procedures) and in-patient treatment, as well as his use of a walker and recommended
home health aide, as he was not able to get dressed on his own or feed himself, resulting
5 In particular, Petitioner cited to Robinson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-88V, 2020 WL
5820967, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 27, 2020) (awarding $160,000 for pain and suffering); Gruba v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1157V, 2021 WL 1925630 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 13, 2021) (awarding
$165,000 for pain and suffering); Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-835V, 2021 WL 2666685
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021) (awarding $160,000 for pain and suffering); W.B. v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-1634V, 2020 WL 5509686, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020) (awarding
$155,000 for pain and suffering); and Weil v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-831V, 2023 WL
1778281 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 6, 2023) (awarding $140,000 for pain and suffering).
4

Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 5 of 7
in 16 months of treatment. Id. at 9. Respondent, on the other hand, argues Petitioner
suffered a more mild course of GBS than in other cases,6 due to his 30-day total
hospitalization, no complications while hospitalized (or inpatient rehabilitation), and there
is no evidence that Petitioner sought the care of PT, OT, or a home health aide following
discharge – despite such care being recommended. Response at 5. As a result,
Respondent proposes an award of only $112,500.00. Id. at 1.
Based upon the forgoing, and considering the parties’ written and oral arguments,
I find that Petitioner suffered a moderately-severe injury – noting that GBS has a more
frightening and inherently-severe character as a vaccine injury, in comparison to other
Program claims – and as a result, a higher-than-average pain and suffering award is
appropriate. See Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL
2666685 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021).
At the same time, however, the considerations that impact how a pain and
suffering award is calculated – level of pain, length of hospitalization and inpatient
rehabilitation, degree and number of procedures for treatment, duration of treatment, and
overall recovery – bear on the final figure to be awarded. Some GBS injuries feature
permanent disabilities and/or continuous treatment (i.e., with medications), while others
are characterized by a better recovery. Petitioner’s GBS injury required fairly intensive
medical treatment, including a 10-day hospitalization, five-day course of IVIG treatment
and a nearly one month stay in in-patient rehabilitation for PT/OT; his injury impacted his
ability to care for himself, including dressing and feeding himself, as well as causing
mobility issues, the use of assisted devices, and exhaustion. Still, his subsequent
condition is much improved following his approximate 14-month course of treatment, even
accounting for some lingering deficits common to GBS’s aftermath (weakness,
numbness). And Petitioner did not require long-term neurological medications reflecting
ongoing sequelae – as his receipt of B-12 injections do not constitute a direct neurological
treatment.
I find the comparable damages determinations offered by Petitioner to be helpful
in providing a reasonable range of outcomes pertaining to the instant case, with Gruba –
involving a past pain and suffering award of $165,000.00 – perhaps providing the most
guidance. No. 19-1157V, 2021 WL 1925630 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 13, 2021). The
Gruba petitioner’s course included a 10-day hospital stay (similar to Petitioner herein),
three-day course of IVIG, nine-day in-patient treatment, and 17 out-patient PT sessions.
See id. Gruba made a notably good recovery but still had some mild residual numbness
after her approximate three-year course – nearly double that of Petitioner. Id. The Gruba
6 Respondent has unhelpfully not offered any cases as comparable to support his proposed award of
$112,500.00. Instead, he simply attempts unsuccessfully to distinguish the instant case from those cited as
comparable cases by Petitioner. See Response at 6-7.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 6 of 7
petitioner did not at any time need assistance walking and it was notable that she did not
experience respiratory distress. Id. However, it was considerable that Gruba had to leave
a job at a childcare facility because she could no longer handle work with children and/or
receive vaccinations as a result of her GBS. Id.
While the same job-related factors are not present in the instant case, Petitioner’s
immediate treatment during the acute phase of his GBS was more severe than what was
experienced by the Gruba petitioner. In fact, Petitioner’s inpatient treatment lasted for
approximately 20 days longer, and Petitioner required considerable assistance with
mobility, including the eventual use of assisted devices – unlike the Gruba petitioner who
did not require assistance with mobility. And, while not a job-related loss per se, Petitioner
here nonetheless lost the enjoyment of his woodworking hobbies he had been looking
forward to in retirement, a factor that should be given some weight. These differences
dictate that Petitioner should be awarded slightly more than the Gruba petitioner.
However, I do not find that an award above $170,000.00 (consistent with
Petitioner’s request), is warranted here. Where pain and suffering awards exceed
$170,000.00, the petitioners typically have demonstrated the significant impact their
vaccine-related injury had on their lives, such as permanent limitations on the nature of
the work they could perform.7 More so, in such cases the injured parties experience worse
prognoses, and continue to require medication for ongoing true GBS-related issues.8 I
recognize that Petitioner has some long-lasting sequelae from his GBS, but the lingering
symptoms are not severe enough to require ongoing treatment and thus do not compute
to the full amount of Petitioner’s requested award here. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 7-10.
For these reasons, I do not find that the GBS injury and its sequelae were of such
high severity to justify an award of the magnitude requested by Petitioner. The actual pain
and suffering component will nonetheless be larger than in many vaccine injury cases,
simply for the reason (as I stated at hearing) that the severe and frightening quality of an
immune-mediated injury like GBS warrants commensurate damages. But the fact that this
case of GBS was a bit less severe than comparable instances means that the actual
award should be slightly lower. I therefore award actual pain and suffering of $167,500.00.
7 See, e.g., Enstrom v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-2020V, 2023 WL 345657 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Dec. 16, 2022) (awarding $170,000.00 in pain and suffering where the petitioner, in part, retired early
from a job at a power company because it involved significant walking that he could not perform due to his
GBS).
8 See, e.g., Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 17-428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 29, 2019); Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL 1915138, at *6
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2020).
6

Case 1:23-vv-00714-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/08/25 Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION
In light of all of the above, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$167,500.00, (representing compensation 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) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 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