# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 3

- 941 V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

LOUIS R. BROCKINGTON, *

*

Petitioner, * Filed: Ma y 28 , 2014

*

v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;

* Influenza ( “ Flu ” ) Vaccine ;

* Guillain

- Barré Syndrome ( “ GBS ” )

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES

, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

James M. Griffin

, Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, L.L.P., Columbia, SC, for Petitioner

.

J

ustine Daigneault, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On November 27, 201 3 Petitioner Louis R. Brockington filed a petition seeking

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ( “ the Vaccine

Program ” ). 2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain

- Barré s yndrome (“GBS”) and related

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this

decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as

amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B),

however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of

confidential informatio n. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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) th at 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 avai lable to the

public. ( Id. )

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended,

42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa

- 10

- ' 300 aa

- 34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to

individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.complications as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine

.

Respondent denies that P etitioner ’s GBS and any related medical problems were caused

by the receipt of the flu vaccine

. Nonetheless both parties , while maintaining their above

- stated

positions, agreed in a s tipulation filed Ma y 27 , 2014 that the issues before them can be settled

and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.

I have reviewed the fil e , and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’

stipulation is reasonable

. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms

set forth therein.

The stipulation awards:

A lump sum of $ 160 ,000.00, in the form of a check payab le to petitioner. This

amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42

U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

Stipulation ¶ 8.

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested 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

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly or

separately filing notice renouncing their right to seek review.

2