United States Court of Federal Claims, 2026

Bigelow v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 2, 2026 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-0658V

PAULA BIGELOW, as personal representative of ESTATE OF RUTH Chief Special Master Corcoran A. JONES,

Filed: January 30, 2026 Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.

Crystal Fialkowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On April 16, 2025, Paula Bigelow, as personal representative of the estate of Ruth A. Jones (“Ms. Jones”), 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 her mother, Ms. Jones, suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative caused-in-fact injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 6, 2024. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 4, 22-24. Petitioners also alleged that Ms. Jones received the vaccine within the United States, that she sadly passed away from her GBS illness on November 25, 2024, and that neither Petitioner nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for Ms. Jones’s GBS, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4, 25-27. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 30, 2026, 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 (QAI).” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, [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.