DAVID D. BRONSON , Petitioner, v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran
Fil ed: August 12, 2022 Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Lisa Annette Roquemore , Law Office of Lisa A. Roquemore , Rancho San ta Margarita , CA, for Petitioner.
Mary Eileen Holmes , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On A ugust 23, 202 1 , David Bronson 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 a Table injury – Guillain

- Barre Syndrome ( “ GBS ”) – as a result of h is influneza (“flu”) vaccination September 23, 2020

. Petition at 8 . Petitione r further alleges the vaccine was administered within the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of h is injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on h is behalf as a result of h is injury. S ee Petition at 8-9

. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the R uling 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 ). 

# In **t he U**  **nited States C**  **ourt of Fe**  **deral Claims** 
OFFICE OF SPECI AL M ASTERS

No. 21
- 1741 V UNPUBLISHED2 On A ugust 11, 2022 , R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent indicates that [m] edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and have concluded that petitioner suffered GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a preponderance of the medical evidence that petitioner’s GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the vaccination.
Id. at 6 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 13(a)(1) ) . Respondent further agrees that

t he claim also meets the statutory severity requirements because petitioner experienced sequelae of his GBS for more than six months. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act

. Id.
In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that P etitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/B rian H. Corcoran Br ian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master