United States Court of Federal Claims, 2018

Forgey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Forgey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided February 14, 2018 · Nora Beth Dorsey
Forgey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-0505V Filed: October 11, 2017 UNPUBLISHED

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

John R. Howie, Jr., Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.

Voris E. Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On April 11, 2017, 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 alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 7, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 11, 2017, 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period, and there is not a preponderance of the medical evidence that petitioner’s GBS was due to a factor Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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.

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). unrelated to the vaccination.” Id. at 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a); 42 U.S.C. §300aa- 13(a)(1)). Respondent also determined that the claim “meets the statutory severity requirements because petitioner experienced sequelae of his GBS for more than six months.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. §300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i)). “Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.