Stanfield v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1894V

JAMES STANFIELD Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 9, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

John Beaulieu, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.

Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On December 23, 2022, James Stanfield (“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 from Guillain- Barre Syndrome “GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on Octoer 1, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, that the vaccine was administered within the United States, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result of his injury. Id. at 1, 5. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

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).

On February 21, 2024, 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 Recommending Compensation at 1. Specifically, Respondent has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury table. Id. at 4- 5.

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