DAVID D. BRONSON, 

 Petitioner,

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 12, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Lisa Annette Roquemore, Law Office of Lisa A. Roquemore, Rancho Santa Margarita, 

CA, for Petitioner.

Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 23, 2021, 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 his influneza (“flu”) vaccination September 23, 2020. 

Petition at 8. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered within the United 

States, that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and 

that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result 

of his injury. See Petition at 8-9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 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 (2012).

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-1741V 

UNPUBLISHED
2

On August 11, 2022, 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 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 

the 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 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