# In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-391V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Corcoran GARTH R. JACKSON, * * Petitioner, * Filed: December 2, 2016 * v. * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * In fluenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain -Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kelly D. Burdette , Burkett & Burdette, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Lara Ann Englund , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On April 20, 2015, Garth R. Jackson filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Comp ensa tion Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his September 22, 2014, receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months.

1 Because this decision contains a reas oned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential informat ion. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Chil dhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Ac t” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 30 0aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).2 Respondent denies that Petitioner’s flu vacci nation caused his alleged G BS, or any other injury or condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on December 1, 2016) that the issu es before them could be settled, and that a decision should be ente red awarding Petitioner compensation. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that re view, I conclude that th e parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonabl e. I therefore adopt it as my d ecision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards:

 A lump sum of $190,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensa tion for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Act. I approve a Vaccine Program award in the reque sted amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Spe cial Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite en try of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.