# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-937V

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Corcoran JOHN JASTISAN, * * Petitioner, * Filed: August 10, 2016 * v. * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * In fluenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain -Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); * Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Respondent. * Pol yneuropathy (“CIDP”). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paul R. Brazil , Muller Brazil, LLP, Dreshe r, PA, for Petitioner.

Traci R. Patton , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On November 26, 2013, John Jastisan filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensa tion Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) and/or Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a re sult of his September 16, 2011, rece ipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experi enced 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 in vasion 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 the flu vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer GBS, CIDP, or any other injury or condition. Respondent also denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer a significant aggravation of any pr e-existing GBS and/or CIDP. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on August 4, 2016) that the

issues before them could be se ttled, and that a decision should be entered 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 $40,000.00 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 A ppendix B, the clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special 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.