The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-2156V
SCOTT O’KEEFE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 27, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 20, 2023, Scott O’Keefe 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 he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”),
a Table injury, as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 22, 2021.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters in April 2025.
1 Because this Decision 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 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, 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).
Respondent recommended compensation for the claimed flu/GBS Table injury,
and the case moved formally into the damages phase, in September 2024. ECF Nos. 23-
24. The parties swiftly reached an impasse, however, and briefed their respective
valuations of the case. Brief filed Dec. 23, 2024, ECF No. 30 (seeking $140,000.00 for
past pain and suffering); Response filed Feb. 19, 2025, ECF No. 33 (proffering just
$62,500.00); Reply filed Mar. 5, 2025, ECF No. 35. After further informal discussions (see
Scheduling Order filed July 25, 2025, ECF No. 36), the parties confirmed that they remain
at an impasse related to Petitioner’s pain and suffering. Status Report filed Nov. 24, 2025,
ECF No. 40. The case is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, I award
$125,000.00 for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.
I. Legal Standard
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining GBS damages, taking into account prior compensation
determinations within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in
Sections I – II of Congdon v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-2025V, 2025 WL
2734068, at *1 – 4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 21, 2025).
In sum, compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or
actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). The petitioner bears the
burden of proof with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 18, 1996). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.3
II. Fact Record4
Petitioner received the at-issue flu vaccine during an appointment with his primary
care physician (“PCP”) on September 22, 2021. He had no directly relevant preexisting
conditions, and was then 64 years old. Response at 2, citing Ex. 5 at 5, 7-9, 130; see also
Ex. 16 at 3 (characterizing Petitioner as retired).
3 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
4 While I have not specifically addressed every medical record, or all arguments presented in the parties’
briefs, I have fully considered all records as well as all arguments presented by both parties.
2
On or about eleven (11) days post-vaccination, on October 3, 2021, Petitioner
developed new mental fog; numbness and tingling beginning in his fingertips and
ascending through all four extremities; weakness; fatigue; unsteady gait; difficulty walking
unassisted; and increased blood pressure. The first, limited medical evaluations – namely
from paramedics responding to his home, evaluations at two separate hospital
emergency rooms, and a primary care follow-up – were inconclusive, but also
recommended a neurology initial consult. See generally Ex. 16; Ex. 3 at 9-14; Ex. 5 at 41-
43; id. at 5
At the October 7, 2021 initial consult, the neurologist recorded a similar onset of
symptoms, which had progressed to include difficulty seeing and swallowing. Ex. 4 at 5.
Dr. Miller’s differential diagnosis included GBS, and he recommended emergency
evaluation. Id. at 6.
During his subsequent five-day hospitalization (from October 7-12, 2021),
Petitioner underwent CT scans of the head and neck. An MRI of the brain found “abnormal
diffusion restriction involving the medial medulla,” and an MRI of the cervical spine found
“multilevel degenerative cervical spondylosis with mild central stenosis and high-grade
foraminal stenosis... severe at bilateral C5-C6 and left C6-C7”). Ex. 6 at 41-42. After
undergoing a lumbar puncture, he was diagnosed with GBS, specifically the Miller-Fisher
variant. Id. at 39.5 His presenting symptoms of vertical nystagmus,6 weakness in both
legs, and parasthesias in both legs and both arms all “significant[ly] improve[d]” after a 4-
day course of IVIg. He also received inpatient physical, occupational, and speech
therapies. Id. He was discharged home in stable condition. Id.7
Petitioner’s subsequent medical records are mostly limited to periodic outpatient
neurology follow-up appointments. First, on October 18, 2021, the neurologist recorded
that after being previously diagnosed with GBS and treated with IVIg, Petitioner was
“doing exceptionally well. He has a bit of numbness over the tips of his fingers, but his
vision has essentially resolved. There have been no other acute changes.” Ex. 4 at 11.
The physical exam findings were normal except for “mildly choppy pursuits” at cranial
5 See also 42 C.F.R. 100.3(c)(15)(III) (explaining that the GBS Miller-Fisher variant is characterized by
bilateral ophthalmoparesis; bilateral reduced or absent tendon reflexes; ataxia; and the absence of limb
weakness).
6 Nystagmus is defined as “an involuntary, rapid, rhythmic movement of the eyeball.” Dorland’s, Nystagmus,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=34565&searchterm=nystagmus (last accessed Jan.
21, 2026).
7 Petitioner’s Brief at 12 provides that his October 2021 hospital course included gabapentin and an EMG,
but that is not corroborated. It appears more likely than not that Petitioner was only recommended
gabapentin and EMG/NCV studies in 2022. See Brief at 7-8 (citing Ex. 7 at 13-14).
3
nerves 3, 4, and 6, and decreased deep tendon reflexes in all extremities. Id. at 12. The
neurologist did not recommend any further care for GBS. Id.8
On December 15, 2021, the neurologist recorded that Petitioner felt his vision was
“completely better”; other than “a little bit of numbness at the tips of the fingers, he was
doing exceptionally well.” Ex. 4 at 15. A physical exam confirmed that Petitioner’s cranial
nerves were now “full.” Id. (No reflex testing was documented, however.) The neurologist
wrote that Petitioner “had” the Miller-Fisher variant of GBS (in the past tense), and further
follow-up appointments could potentially be with his primary care provider. Id.
However on April 14, 2022, Petitioner returned to the neurologist concerned that
his GBS was causing ongoing weakness, numbness, and decreased sensation
particularly in his left arm and left leg – which complaints were corroborated on the
physical exam. Ex. 8 at 17-18. On April 21, 2022, the neurologist reviewed that EMG/NCV
studies had found “no convincing evidence for a large-fiber polyneuropathy of left median
or ulnar mononeuropathy.” Ex. 8 at 7. But Petitioner’s “ongoing neuropathic symptoms
[were] likely related to GBS,” and although those symptoms were “not particularly
pain[ful],” he was prescribed a six-month supply of gabapentin. Id. at 7.
Later in 2022, the PCP documented that Petitioner was “largely recovered apart
from some residual tingling of his fingers, 2 toes of left foot, and numbness around the
left elbow.” Ex. 7 at 4; see also Ex. 13 at 35 (subsequent PCP record regarding Petitioner
being “largely recovered” from GBS).
After a one-year gap in neurological evaluation, Petitioner followed up on May 3,
2023, reporting that he had “generally done well” with his “eye symptoms basically
resolved.” Ex. 19 at 8. But he reported “ongoing… numbness over the tips of his fingers,”
and also “radiating pain in the left arm… seems to start in the mid-upper arm and radiate
to the lower arm.” Ex. 19 at 8; see also id. at 22 (telephone call two weeks earlier, reporting
that the arm “may be getting a bit worse” since 2022). The neurologist noted that a May
3, 2023 EMG newly found “a moderate right and mild left” carpal tunnel syndrome (“CTS”).
Ex. 19 at 9-10. Additionally: “The proximal issues at least raise the question of a cervical
radiculopathy.” Id.
8 Instead, the neurologist’s only active assessment was cerebral atherosclerosis, Ex. 4 at 12, and he also
recommended a repeat MRI of the brain to further assess an abnormality in the medial medulla, Ex. 3 at 8.
4
Despite the neurologist’s specific request (Ex. 19 at 10), the May 17, 2023 cervical
spine MRI did not include comparison to that from the October 2021 hospitalization. Ex.
19 at 12. But the May 2023 MRI found “multilevel degenerative disc disease, most
pronounced at C5-C6 and C6-C7,” with “severe bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at
C5-C6 and severe left-sided neural foraminal narrowing at C6-C7.” Id.
At their (apparently last) appointment on May 22, 2023, the neurologist
summarized that Petitioner “previously had GBS. He comes in now because of ongoing
cervical issues as well as hand numbness.” Ex. 19 at 6. After reviewing the recent
imaging, the neurologist assessed: “Patient with left arm numbness. This may be a triple
crush phenomenon.9 He has ongoing nerve root impingement, but [he] also has CTS
[carpal tunnel syndrome]. I suspect that cervical issues are playing a role. I doubt the
GBS is playing much of a role at this time.” Id. at 7. The neurologist referred back to the
PCP, suggesting that it “may be worthwhile referring [Petitioner] to the spine center for an
opinion.” Id. The neurologist also referred Petitioner to physical therapy (“PT”) at his
request. Id.
The June 14, 2023 PT initial evaluation record lists Petitioner’s chief complaint as
“neck pain.” Ex. 12 at 2. Petitioner recounted receiving a “flu shot 2 years ago, and got
Guillain-Barré syndrome [GBS] and has N&T [numbness and tingling] in his B [bilateral]
hands and fingers, L arm between his bicep and forearm, and N&T in two toes. His
neurologist discovered a pinched nerve on the L side of his neck. Onset: October 2021.”
Id. Petitioner’s pain (at worst) 4/10, and he had difficulty playing the guitar, playing golf,
grabbing keys, and lifting things with the left arm. Id. After conducting a physical
examination, the therapist assessed Petitioner with “glove syndrome and L arm
numbness and weakness consistent with Guillain-Barré syndrome [GBS]… While he has
MRI findings showing nerve foramen narrowing, he does not show any physical signs
during the exam that these findings are contributing to his symptoms.” Id. at 5. However,
the therapist did not address the EMG findings of carpal tunnel syndrome, the
neurologist’s “doubt” about GBS contributing to the current complaints, or the
recommendation for a spine specialist’s consult (see Ex. 19 at 7).
At the June 2023 encounter, the physical therapist assessed Petitioner with a 35%
functional limitation, offered a home exercise program (“HEP”) aimed at strengthening his
arms, and opined that formal therapy was not required (or moreover, “typically
benefi[cial]” for GBS and peripheral nerve disease). Ex. 12 at 5.
9 Dorland’s does not offer a definition for triple crush, but it defines double crush syndrome as “compression
or other damage of the same nerve at two different points, such as carpal tunnel syndrome with cervical
radiculopathy.” Dorland’s, Double Crush Syndrome,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=110529 (last accessed Jan. 21, 2026).
5
Petitioner has not filed any further records from medical specialists (e.g.,
neurology, physical therapy, the suggested spine center). Subsequent primary care
records reference his “distant history” of GBS and “nearly full recovery.” See, e.g., Ex. 18
at 18, 15, 11, 8, 5 (organized chronologically).
As of June 2024, Petitioner10 describes ongoing numbness and pain in his fingers;
numbness in his left arm from the bicep to the elbow; left arm pain and stiffness with
activity; and numbness in two toes. Ex. 21 at ¶¶ 1-5. These symptoms make it difficult to
pick up small things like keys; turn the pages of a book or magazine; play guitar (which
he had enjoyed for his entire adult life); and work around the house and in the yard. Id.
Petitioner avers that these symptoms may sound minor to some, but they are life
changing. Id. at ¶ 7.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The parties agree, and my
own review of the evidence confirms, that at all times Petitioner was a competent adult
with no impairments that would impact awareness of the injury. Therefore, I analyze
principally the injury’s severity and duration.
In performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including the
medical records, affidavits, and all assertions made by the parties. I considered prior
awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU GBS cases, and rely upon my
experience adjudicating these cases. However, I ultimately base my determination on the
circumstances of this case.
The medical record evidence detailed above indicates that after the September 22,
2021 vaccination, Petitioner suffered a relatively mild case of GBS (specifically the Miller-
Fisher variant) corresponding to a Table listing. After a several-day delay, GBS was
appropriately diagnosed and treated effectively with one course of IVIg. The five-day
hospitalization also featured CT and MRI imaging, a lumbar puncture, and various therapy
sessions. This initial acute course was no doubt distressing, but also typical of GBS cases
seen in the Program. In light of Petitioner’s limited symptoms and “substantial recovery”
during this short hospitalization, he was discharged home without any neuropathic
10 I have also reviewed the statement from Petitioner’s sister at Ex. 20 – but it largely supplements the
medical records regarding Petitioner’s GBS onset and acute treatment in October 2021, and it does not
address his long-term course or potential residual effects from GBS.
It is further noted that the statements at Exs. 20-21 lack notarization – but they are made under penalty of
perjury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (providing that such a statement may be given “like force and effect” as a
notarized affidavit).
6
medications or any need for inpatient rehabilitation, home health services, or formal PT.
I note that roughly six months after the GBS onset, in April 2022, Petitioner and his
neurologist felt that his GBS was likely causing some residual weakness, numbness, and
decreased sensation particularly in his left arm and left leg, which justified a trial of
gabapentin. But these residual symptoms were “not particularly pain[ful]” (Ex. 8 at 7), and
he was nonetheless characterized as “largely recovered” from GBS (Ex. 7 at 4; Ex. 13 at
35). The 2022 records, and the subsequent one-year gap in neurology evaluations,
support that Petitioner may have had some ongoing GBS residual effects, but they were
not significantly disruptive.11
Petitioner has not preponderantly established that GBS explains his entire clinical
picture for treatment obtained in subsequent years. He emphasizes the June 2023
physical therapy assessment that his ongoing symptoms were consistent with GBS (Brief
at 8-9, citing Ex. 12 at 3-4). But that assessment does not appear to incorporate the entire
history, including Petitioner’s arm potentially becoming more painful well after his GBS
onset (see Ex. 19 at 8, 22) and the additional, potentially additive findings of cervical
radiculopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome. In contrast to the physical therapist, the
neurologist with a more complete understanding of Petitioner’s case believed that all of
these conditions were relevant (suggesting a “triple crush phenomenon, and “doubt[ing]
the GBS is playing much of a role” as of May 2023 (Ex. 19 at 7, emphasis added).
Turning to the parties’ specific valuations, Petitioner has requested $140,000.00
for his past pain and suffering. Brief at 9-12. But I have explained above why his claimed
residuals are not fully proven – and his cited cases12 are distinguishable for other reasons
as well. As Respondent observes (Response at 9-10), the Shankar, Black, and Lemon
petitioners all had more extensive acute treatment.13 Sand and Walter are not great fits
11 Despite Petitioner’s assertion of ongoing “decreased vision” (Brief at 12), Petitioner apparently did not
follow through with a contemplated ophthalmology consult (referenced at Ex. 13 at 31) and the neurologist
later reiterated (in May 2023) that Petitioner’s “eye symptoms basically resolved” (Ex. 19 at 8). Petitioner
also references erectile issues (Brief at 12), but the medical records suggest a gradual worsening of issues
that predated the GBS (see e.g., Ex. 5 at 53).
12 Citing Sand v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1104V, 2021 WL 4704665 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 31, 2021) (awarding $130,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Walter v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-1461V, 2024 WL 1299576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2024) ($130,000.00); Shankar v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1382V, 2022 WL 2196407 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 5, 2022) ($135,000.00),
mot. for recons. den’d, 2023 WL 2343947 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2023); Black v. Sec'y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 21-2164V, 2024 WL 3467272 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 11, 2024) ($140,000.00); Lemon
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0701V, 2024 WL 3160695 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2024)
($145,000.00).
13 Shankar, 2022 WL 2196407 at *5 (summarizing that the Shankar petitioner “endured nearly two weeks
of hospitalization [and] inpatient rehabilitation, and several months of physical and occupational therapy”);
Black, 2024 WL 3467272 at *3 (stating that the Black petitioner’s “in-patient care occurred over two weeks”
and was followed by “minimal” physical therapy); Lemon, 2024 WL 3160695 at *3 (reviewing that the Lemon
7
because each features an extended delay in the recognition of GBS, and thus delay in
the start of appropriate treatment.14
At the same time, Respondent’s proffer of just $62,500.00 is unjustified in this
context. I have consistently explained that even a mild case of GBS will typically result in
a past pain and suffering award of over $100,000.00, in part due to its frightening and
serious initial phase. Congdon, 2025 WL 2734068 at *3-4. I have only awarded less on
one occasion, in the Granville case.15 Granville did feature a fairly limited five-day
hospitalization with a lumbar puncture and one course of IVIg, and no inpatient
rehabilitation or formal outpatient therapy. But in Granville, the evidence – including both
the medical records, and the petitioner’s own statement – fully supported a “quick and full
recovery” within the first year. Granville, 2023 WL 6441388, at *4 (emphasis added). I
have consistently noted Granville to be an outlier for this reason. In contrast here, there
is support that for over a year, Mr. O’Keefe’s GBS has resulted in some (if not significantly
disruptive) decreased endurance and strength, and his GBS has also potentially
contributed (alongside other neurological conditions) to his sensory symptoms.
Respondent (see Response at 8-9) also avers that his position here is supported
by a five-figure award in Geschwindner.16 But Petitioner persuasively observes (see
Reply at 4) that the original award from this decision is not instructive, because it was set
aside (due to ineffective assistance of counsel), and Mr. Geschwindner was eventually
awarded $120,000.00 for his past pain and suffering.17
petitioner “received various therapies in her home for approximately 2.5 months” after her hospitalization).
As already noted, Mr. O’Keefe was hospitalized for just five days with no inpatient rehabilitation, home
health services, or formal PT (until a PT initial consult over two years after the GBS onset).
14 Sand, 2021 WL 4704665 at *6-7 (noting that the Sand petitioner was never hospitalized, only received
gabapentin from outpatient providers, and had preexisting areas of neuropathic pain); Walter, 2024 WL
1299576, at *3-4 (reflecting that the Walter petitioner was discharged from the hospital, and later received
IVIg on an outpatient basis). Here, Mr. O’Keefe’s GBS was not recognized for about three days – but
afterwards he was admitted to the hospital and effectively treated with IVIg.
15 Granville v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V, 2023 WL 6441388 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
30, 2023) (awarding $92,500.00 for past pain and suffering).
16 Geschwindner v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1558V, 2022 WL 177372 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 28, 2022) (initially awarding $92,500.00 for past pain and suffering).
17 See Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-0591V, 2025 WL 1927640 at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. June 23, 2025) (stating that Geschwindner “involves peculiar procedural facts that render it a poor
comparison case – for virtually any other context”); Taylor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0335V,
2025 WL 2304630 at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2025) (reiterating that “the precise determination from
Geschwindner loses some of its heft as guidance”).
8
Overall, I find that an appropriate award for past pain and suffering in this case
should recognize Petitioner’s experience of GBS, a characteristically alarming initial injury
requiring inpatient hospitalization and urgent medical attention, and with some ongoing
symptoms such as fatigue and abnormal sensation. But Petitioner’s GBS was
comparatively mild. The vision problems unique to the diagnosed Miller-Fisher variant of
GBS resolved quickly. The acute treatment course was less than that in cases like
Shankar, Black, and Lemon. The medical records endorse Petitioner achieving a
substantial recovery from GBS and there being some potential alternative/ contributory
conditions relating to his ongoing complaints. Petitioner was also a retired individual
without documented disruptions to employment or other significant obligations. Finally, I
find comparable the recently decided Woodward case, in which I found $125,000 to be
an appropriate past pain and suffering for another individual diagnosed with the Miller-
Fisher variant of GBS who improved significantly during a four-day hospitalization,
received nearly no outpatient therapies, and returned to work within months.18 I therefore
find that a fair and appropriate award for past pain and suffering in this case is
$125,000.00.19
Conclusion
I hereby award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $128,565.79 (representing
compensation in the amounts of $125,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $3,424.76
for actual unreimbursable medical expenses, and $139.03 for mileage)20 to be paid
through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.21
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
18 Woodward v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-2075V, 2025 WL 4072363 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Dec. 17, 2025).
19 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
20 The parties stipulated to the expenses. Reply filed Mar. 5, 2025 (ECF No. 35) at n. 2; accord Petitioner’s
Status Report filed Nov. 24, 2025, ECF No. 40.
21 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
9