In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-760V 

(Not to be published)

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

 * 

PATRICIA A. SAYO, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Filed: February 10, 2015 

 * 

 v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; 

 * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Tetanus 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Diphtheria acellular Pertussis 

HUMAN SERVICES, * (“TDaP”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré

 * Syndrome (“GBS”) 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Anne Carrion Toale, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. 

Michael Patrick Milmoe, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent 

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On November 14, 2011, Petitioner Patricia A. Sayo filed a petition seeking compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner

alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) and related complications as a result 

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 EGovernment 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 posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential 

information. 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) 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 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-' 300aa-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. 

 
of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine and/or the Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis 

(“TDaP”) vaccine. 

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

by the receipt of the flu or TDaP vaccines. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their 

above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed February 10, 2015 that the issues before them 

can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. 

I have reviewed the file, 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 $185,220.00, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner

and Delaware Physicians Care. This amount represents reimbursement of a State 

of Delaware Medicaid lien; and

A lump sum of $500,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This 

amount represents compensation for all remaining 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 filing 

notice renouncing their right to seek review.

2