United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Bristol v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 18, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 23-1622V

MARIA M. BRISTOL, as executor of Chief Special Master Corcoran ESTATE OF JAMES A. BRISTOL, JR.,

Filed: March 19, 2025 Petitioner, v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 20, 2023, James A, Bristol, Jr. filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). After Mr. Bristol sadly passed away, Maria M. Bristol, his wife and executor of his estate, was substituted as Petitioner. ECF No. 21. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Bristol suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 12, 2022. Petition at 1 ¶¶ 5, 49. Petitioner also alleges that Mr. Bristol received the flu vaccine within the United States, that he never fully recovered from his GBS, and that neither he nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his GBS. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 47-48. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 19, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer of Compensation in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer of Compensation at 1. Specifically, Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on the current record, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

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 Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

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