Court Opinion

ID: 4520034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-27 12:01:32.980828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:24.468944
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 18-1569V
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    PAMELA A. STRICKER,                                       Chief Special Master Corcoran

                         Petitioner,                          Filed: February 19, 2020
    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.

Firooz Taghi Namei, McKinney & Namei Company, L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH, for
petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                     RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

        On October 10, 2018, Pamela A. Stricker 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 she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
after receiving the influenza vaccination on September 11, 2017. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 5.
Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her GBS for more than
six months and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received
compensation for her GBS. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 49. 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
        On February 12, 2020, 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 “concluded that petitioner suffered the Table
injury of GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a
preponderance of the medical evidence that petitioner’s GBS was due to a factor
unrelated to the vaccination.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “based on the
record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 7.

       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