# 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No. 11-760V (Not to be published)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 DAMAGES 1

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 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 posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidenti al 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 confidenti al; 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 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.of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine and/or the Tetanus

- Di phtheria- acellular Pertussis (“ TDaP ” ) vaccine

.

Respondent denies that P etitioner ’s GBS and any related medical problems were caused by the receipt of the flu or TDaP vaccine s

. Nonetheless both parties , while maintaining their
above- stated positions, agreed in a s tipulation filed F ebruary 10, 2015 that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.

I h ave 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 P etitioner 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