In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-82V 

Filed: June 15, 2017

Unpublished

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

D.J., * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement;

v. * Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

 * Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS); 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (SPU) 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Nancy Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Michael Milmoe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On January 14, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”)

after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 7, 2013. Petition at 1, ¶ 3, 11. 

Petitioner further alleged that he received the vaccination in the United States, has

suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and has not filed any 

action or received compensation for his injuries alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 

11, 13-14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office 

of Special Masters.

On March 13, 2017, the parties informed the court they had reached a tentative 

settlement agreement and a 15-Week Order was issued. (ECF No. 34). On June 7, 

2017, respondent’s counsel requested a status conference with the OSM staff attorney 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it 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 (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

substituting for the staff attorney managing this case. See Informal Remark, dated June 

7, 2017. During the call held later that same day, respondent’s counsel stated that 

respondent would not contest entitlement in this case and that he wished to file a Rule 

4(c) Report.

On June 13, 2017, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report stating that he “does not 

contest entitlement in this matter.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent

stated that “[i]t is [his] position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the 

newly revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to 

Interpretation (“QAI”).” Id. at 3. “Although the revised Table only governs petitions filed 

on or after the effective date of the final rule [March 21, 2017], the evidence shows that 

petitioner suffered GBS following the administration of a seasonal flu vaccine, and that 

the onset occurred within the time period specified in the Table.” Id. Because petitioner 

would be entitled to “a presumption of causation under the revised Table” if he simply 

re-filed his petition, respondent “will not contest entitlement to compensation.” Id. 

(citation omitted).

Based on the evidence before me in this case, I find petitioner entitled to 

vaccine injury compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master