Court Opinion

ID: 7800796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-16 13:01:25.525508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:11.661600
License: Public Domain

CORRECTED

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 21-1711V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    CHRISTOPHER HUDSON,                                     Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: July 5, 2022
    v.
                                                            Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                 Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                         Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
                                                            Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
                       Respondent.

Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.

Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

       On August 17, 2021, Christopher Hudson 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 alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), a
defined Table injury, which also was causally related to the influenza vaccine he received
on September 2, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 11, 19, 23. Petitioner further alleges that he
received the vaccination in the United States, that he continues to suffer the residual
effects of his GBS more than six months post-vaccination, and that neither he nor any
other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his GBS. Petition at ¶¶ 1,
19, 21, 24-25. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
       On July 5, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI).” Id.
at 12.

       In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                        s/Brian H. Corcoran
                                                        Brian H. Corcoran
                                                        Chief Special Master

                                             2