United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Heineman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 1, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1886V

REBECCA HEINEMAN, on behalf of her deceased spouse, JENNELL Chief Special Master Corcoran JAQUAYS,

Filed: October 24, 2025 Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Nathan Joseph Marchese, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner. Adam Nemeth Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 15, 2024, Rebecca Heineman, on behalf of her deceased spouse, Jennell Jaquays, 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 alleged that Jennell Jaquays (“Ms. Jaquays”) suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative caused-in-fact injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 9, 2023. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 26-27. Petitioners also alleged that Ms. Jaquays received the vaccine within the United States, that she sadly passed away from her GBS illness on January 10, 2024, and that neither Petitioner nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for Ms. Jaquays’s GBS, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 28-29. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 24, 2025, 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 has concluded “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for GBS following administration of a seasonal flu vaccination.” Id. at 9. Respondent further agrees that “[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.