VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00739
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00739
Petitioner: Robert Paveglio
Filed: 2023-05-19
Decided: 2025-05-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-05
Condition: Guillain Barre syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 145000

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 19, 2023, Robert Paveglio filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 5, 2020. Mr. Paveglio was 78 years old at the time of vaccination. His past medical history included chest pain, right upper quadrant pain, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, left knee pain, localized osteoarthritis of the lower leg, and left knee pain. Approximately two weeks after receiving the vaccine, on October 29, 2020, Mr. Paveglio presented to North Shore University Emergency Department with a complaint of progressive bilateral leg weakness that had begun around the time of his vaccination. He reported falling the previous day due to his legs giving out. He was admitted to neurology, and differential diagnoses included mixed-picture GBS and transverse myelitis. An MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine was ordered, and a lumbar puncture was performed on October 30, 2020. The cerebrospinal fluid analysis demonstrated albuminocytological dissociation with a protein level of 108, which was consistent with GBS. The attending neurologist diagnosed Mr. Paveglio with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy (AIDP) and initiated IVIG treatments. Mr. Paveglio received four IVIG treatments between October 31 and November 3, 2020, and was discharged home on November 3, 2020. Following discharge, he underwent 44 outpatient physical therapy sessions over five and a half months, from November 10, 2020, to April 26, 2021. His last neurology appointment was on February 10, 2022, where his neurologist noted continued improvement in strength. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, stating that Mr. Paveglio satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table for GBS, with onset within the presumed window and no apparent alternative cause. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on March 8, 2024, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. As the parties could not agree on damages, a hearing was held. In a decision dated April 3, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Mr. Paveglio $145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. The Special Master considered Mr. Paveglio's moderate case of GBS, the duration of his treatment, and compared it to other similar cases, finding the award to be reasonable and appropriate. Petitioner was represented by Paul R. Brazil of Muller Brazil, LLP, and Respondent was represented by Katherine Edwards of the U.S. Department of Justice. The award was to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner's counsel's IOLTA account.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Robert Paveglio, age 78, received an influenza vaccine on October 5, 2020. He alleged Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a vaccine injury. The respondent conceded entitlement, recognizing that Petitioner's GBS was a Table injury with onset between three and forty-two days after vaccination and no apparent alternative cause. Petitioner's symptoms of progressive bilateral leg weakness began approximately two weeks after vaccination, and he was diagnosed with GBS/AIDP on October 30, 2020, with CSF findings of albuminocytological dissociation. Treatment included hospitalization, four IVIG treatments, and 44 outpatient physical therapy sessions over five and a half months. The Special Master awarded $145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, considering the moderate severity and duration of the injury, and comparing it to prior cases. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the ruling on entitlement on March 8, 2024, and the final decision awarding damages on April 3, 2025. Petitioner was represented by Paul R. Brazil, and Respondent by Katherine Edwards.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00739-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/08/2024) regarding 22 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00739-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0739V
ROBERT PAVEGLIO,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: March 8, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Edwards, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 19, 2023, Robert Pavelgio 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 Barre syndrome (“GBS”) as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 5, 2020. Petition at 1.
Petitioner further alleges that his symptoms persisted for more than six months. Petition
at 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On March 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.
Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
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-00739-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 2
Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, 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 4. Respondent recommends that the Court issue a decision on entitlement and issue
a damages order. Id. at 5
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-00739-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-06
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/03/2025) regarding 34 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00739-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/06/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0739V
ROBERT PAVEGLIO,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: April 3, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Katherine Edwards, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 19, 2023, Robert Paveglio 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 an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 5, 2020. Petition at 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Although Petitioner has been found entitled to compensation, the parties could not
agree on the damages to be awarded, and therefore the matter was scheduled for a
“Motions Day” proceeding. For the reasons set forth below, and after hearing argument
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-00739-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/06/25 Page 2 of 6
from the parties, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of
$145,000.00 for his actual pain and suffering.
I. Procedural History
On March 8, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement in favor of Petitioner. ECF No.
22. But the parties were unable to agree on an appropriate amount to award Mr. Paveglio
for his pain and suffering, and therefore agreed to brief the issue. ECF No. 29. On
September 13, 2024, Petitioner filed his brief in support of damages (“Mot.”), and
Respondent filed a Response on October 28, 2024 (“Opp.”). ECF Nos. 30-31. I heard
arguments from both parties during a Motions’ Day Damages hearing held on March 28,
2025.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the Petition, declarations, the
parties’ respective pre-hearing filings, and in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report.
In brief summary, Mr. Paveglio was 78 years old at the time he received the flu
vaccine at Endocrinology - Great Neck located in Great Neck, New York, on October 5,
2020. Ex. 1 at 15. His past medical history included chest pain, right upper quadrant pain,
diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, left knee pain, localized osteoarthritis of
the lower leg, and left knee pain. Ex. 1 at 13.
On October 29, 2020 (24 days after vaccination), Mr. Paveglio went to North Shore
University Emergency Department with a complaint of progressive bilateral leg weakness
that began two weeks prior. Ex. 4 at 370. Petitioner reported that he had fallen the
previous day after his legs “gave out.” Id. Mr. Paveglio also reported that he had received
his flu vaccination three weeks prior around the time when his bilateral leg weakness
began. Id. The provider determined that Mr. Paveglio was a “fall with harm risk” and
subsequently admitted Petitioner to neurology. Id. at 371-73.
During a neurology consult, Mr. Paveglio’s differential diagnoses included mixed-
picture GBS and transverse myelitis. Ex. 4 at 383. The provider ordered MRIs of the
thoracic and lumbar spine and ordered physical therapy. Id. The provider also noted that
a lumbar puncture may be necessary to rule out GBS if the MRIs were negative. Id.
On October 30, 2020, Mr. Paveglio underwent a lumbar puncture and cerebral
spinal fluid (“CSF”) was obtained. Ex. 4 at 435. The CSF analysis demonstrated
albuminocytological dissociation with a protein level of 108, consistent with GBS. Id. at
437. The attending neurologist diagnosed Mr. Paveglio with acute inflammatory
2

Case 1:23-vv-00739-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/06/25 Page 3 of 6
demyelinating polyradiculopathy (“AIDP”) and ordered Petitioner to begin IVIG
treatments. Id. at 440.
Mr. Paveglio received a total of four IVIG treatments between October 31 and
November 3, 2020. Id. at 495. He tolerated the IVIG treatments well and reported feeling
stronger following his treatments. Id. at 459. Mr. Paveglio was evaluated by occupational
therapy and PT and was recommended for discharge with outpatient PT. Id. at 464. Mr.
Paveglio was discharged to his home on November 3, 2020. Id. at 465.
After discharge, Mr. Paveglio went for an initial outpatient PT evaluation on
November 10, 2020. Ex. 13 at 164. He reported pain in his legs, which he rated as a 6/10.
Id. The physical therapist assessed Mr. Paveglio’s condition as bilateral lower extremity
weakness and gait instability, secondary to GBS, and noted that Petitioner’s rehab
potential was good. Id. Mr. Paveglio completed a total of forty-four (44) PT sessions
between November 10, 2020, and April 26, 2021. Id. at 13.
On January 21, 2021, Mr. Paveglio had his first neurology appointment since his
hospitalization discharge. Ex. 5 at 13. He reported that he had a good return of strength
since his treatment. Id. Upon exam, Daniel Rubin, M.D., noted that Petitioner’s gait was
slightly unsteady, but that he had full strength in his limbs. Id. at 14.
Mr. Paveglio returned to neurology on May 25, 2021, and reported that his gait
was a “little shaky,” but that he was using his home exercise bike. Ex. 5 at 11. Upon exam,
Dr. Rubin noted that Petitioner had a trace right knee jerk, that the remaining deep tendon
reflexes were absent, and that petitioner’s gait was “mildly wide based.” Id.
On February 10, 2022, Mr. Paveglio had his final appointment with neurology. Id.
at 9. Dr. Rubin noted that Petitioner continued to show improved strength, advised him to
continue his exercise program and glycemic control, and to follow up in one year.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
a. Petitioner
In his brief, Mr. Paveglio explained that he suffered from GBS, the treatment for
which resulted in a five-day hospitalization, four days of IVIG, a spinal tap, an MRI, and
44 PT sessions over a 24-week period. Mot. at 6. He stated that the total duration of his
pain and suffering was at least 67 weeks. Id. Mr. Paveglio stated that during these 67
weeks, he suffered symptoms of his GBS including absent reflexes and gait dysfunction.”
Id. Petitioner argues that based on the facts and circumstances of his case, including
3

Case 1:23-vv-00739-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/06/25 Page 4 of 6
supportive case law, he is entitled to an award of $160,000.00 for his past pain and
suffering.
Petitioner cited to four cases in support of his claim for past pain and suffering: (1)
Robinson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-088V, 2020 WL 5820967 at *10
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Agu. 27, 2020) (awarding $160,000.00 in actual pain and suffering),
(2) Gruba v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1157V, 2021 WL 1925630 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 13, 2021) (awarding $165,000.00 in pain and suffering), (3) Gross v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-835, 2021 WL 2666685 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 11, 2021) (awarding $160,000.00 in pain and suffering), and (4) W.B. v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1634, 2020 WL 5509686 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. August 7,
2020) (awarding $155,000.00 in pain and suffering).
b. Respondent
Respondent has argued that the cases cited by Petitioner to support his pain and
suffering demand “are factually distinguishable and make clear that he [Petitioner] should
be awarded less than the amounts in his cited cases.” Opp. at 5-6. However, Respondent
has also argued that “[t]he privacy provisions of the Vaccine Act make a true head-to-
head comparison of this case to others difficult, but respondent has reviewed a number
of conceded flu/GBS cases and considers $115,000.00 to be an appropriate pain and
suffering award given the facts of this case.” Opp. at 8. Respondent otherwise did not cite
to any specific reasoned decision in support of his proposed award.
IV. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[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 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 &
Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no precise formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and
suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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
4

Case 1:23-vv-00739-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/06/25 Page 5 of 6
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human 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)).
A special master may also look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each case.
See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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, a special master may rely on his or her own
experience adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
V. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, Petitioner’s awareness of his injury is not disputed. The record reflects
that at all times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact
his awareness of his 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 (even though GBS
itself involves a level of treatment of a higher magnitude than many Program injuries). Mr.
Paveglio’s treatment included a five-day inpatient hospitalization, a lumbar puncture, and
four IVIG treatments, and his records document a mild course, as he quickly regained his
strength without receiving inpatient rehabilitation and could ambulate with assistance
when discharged from the hospital. Following his discharge, Mr. Paveglio attended 44
outpatient PT sessions for a total of five and half months. During his last PT session on
April 26, 2021, the therapist noted that Mr. Paveglio was tolerating treatment well but
would need further therapy to return to his prior level of function. Petitioner continued to
follow up with his neurologist through February 2022, one year and four months after his
vaccination, at which time his neurologist noted that Petitioner showed improved strength.
Although he was recommended to return for a follow up in one year, there are no
additional records to show that Mr. Paveglio returned to his neurologist.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00739-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/06/25 Page 6 of 6
Petitioner cited four cases in his 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
helpful to my determination than what Respondent offered - nothing. 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*2, 6.
She also experienced disturbances in parenting her young children. Mr. Paveglio, in
contrast, was diagnosed and treated quickly, did not suffer significant complications, and
did not suffer major life disturbances (such as to parenting or employment), suggesting
that a lower award is appropriate.
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.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$145,000.00, for Petitioner’s 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 Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 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.
6