In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1574V

(not to be published)

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

JOE GRANADO, JR.,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

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

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Filed: April 5, 2022

Decision by Stipulation; Damages; 

Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Tdap Vaccine; 

Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”); 

Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating

Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”).

Danielle Strait, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On October 9, 2019, Joe Granado, Jr. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation 

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

No. 1. Petitioner alleges he suffered from a Table injury of Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of 

the influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received on February 13, 2017. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated 

April 5, 2022 (ECF No. 42); see also Petition. Petitioner also alleged he suffered from GBS or 

chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) that was caused-in-fact by the flu 

or Tdap vaccines, or that the vaccinations significantly aggravated his injuries. See Stipulation ¶ 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted 

on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 information. 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 invasion of privacy.” 

Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. 

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter 

“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the 

pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
4; see also Petition. He further alleged that he has experienced residual effects of this condition 

for more than six months. Id.

Respondent denies “that the flu or Tdap vaccine caused or significantly aggravated 

petitioner’s alleged neurologic injuries including GBS, CIDP, or any other injury, and further 

denies that petitioner’s current disabilities are sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” See Stipulation 

¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a 

stipulation filed April 5, 2022 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 $230,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

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/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler

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.