United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Miles v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 6, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0146V UNPUBLISHED

JOEL MILES, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: November 21, 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.

Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner. Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 11, 2020, Joel Miles 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 to him on March 16, 2017. Petition at 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 9, 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, it is Respondent’s position that Petitioner’s March 2017 GBS event 3 “satisfied the criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 10.

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 claim.” ECF 19 at 10. Respondent further states that “[t]his second episode of GBS was too far removed in time, approximately two years following the flu vaccination, to satisfy a Table GBS” claim. Id. at n.5.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). 3 Petitioner had a second GBS “event” in February 2019. In his Rule 4(c) report, Respondent notes that “to the extent that petitioner claims that the second GBS event in February 2019, as well as any alleged injury from that event, is related to the March 16, 2017 flu vaccination, then respondent contests that

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