United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Slay v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 30, 2019 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1598V UNPUBLISHED

BRENDA SLAY, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: November 18, 2019 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.

David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for petitioner. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 16, 2018, Brenda Slay 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on October 17, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 18, 2019, 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 states that the “[m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case. They have concluded that petitioner suffered GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not preponderant evidence that petitioner’s GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the vaccination.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that the claim meets the statutory severity requirement because Petitioner experienced sequela of her GBS for more than six months, and therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 6.

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

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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. 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).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.