Wright v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: February 18, 2026

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EDWARD WRIGHT, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 22-986V * v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision Based on Stipulation; Influenza AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré Syndrome * (“GBS”); Chronic Inflammatory Respondent. * Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”); * Table Claim. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Kathleen Margaret Loucks, Lommen Abdo Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION BASED ON STIPULATION 1

On August 18, 2022, Edward Wright (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Program 2 alleging that he suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 23, 2019. 3 Petition at ¶¶ 1-2 (ECF No. 1).

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it 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 Decision 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 3 Petitioner also received a non-covered shingles vaccine on September 23, 2019.

1 On February 17, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation recommending an award of compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 86). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer from GBS, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”), or any other injury or his current condition. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation:

(1) A lump sum of $150,500.00, which represents compensation for first year life care expenses ($10,500.00) and pain and suffering ($140,000.00), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner.

(2) A lump sum of $150,000.00, representing reimbursement of a Minnesota Department of Human Services lien for services renders on behalf of Petitioner, in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and

Minnesota Department of Human Services Tort Recovery Unit Benefit Recovery Section P.O. Box 64994 St. Paul, MN 55164-0994 DHS ID: 01586119 Wright

Petitioner agrees to endorse this check to the Minnesota Department of Health Services.

(3) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the Stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”).

This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Stipulation at ¶ 8.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

2 s/Nora B. Dorsey Nora B. Dorsey Special Master