Agarwal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided August 19, 2021·No. 16-191·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: July 15, 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * * SAURABH AGARWAL and * MUKTA AGARWAL, as guardians of the * estate of RADHIKA AGARWAL, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioners, * No. 16-191V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages; Off-Table Injury; Tetanus- AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Diphtheria-Acellular Pertussis (TDaP); * Meningococcal (Menactra); Autoimmune Respondent. * Limbic Encephalitis; FIRES. * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald C. Homer and Meredith Daniels, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioners. Camille C. Collett, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON DAMAGES1

On February 8, 2016, Saurabh and Mukta Agarwal, on behalf of their then-minor daughter Radhika Agarwal (R.A.), filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioners alleged that as a result of receiving tetanus- diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) and meningococcal (Menactra) vaccines on August 5, 2013, R.A. developed autoimmune limbic encephalitis (ALE) with the associated biomarker of GAD antibodies, and the residual effects of cognitive deficits and intractable epilepsy. Respondent recommended against compensation. Respondent’s Report filed February 27, 2017 (ECF No. 35). Each party submitted expert reports and an entitlement hearing was held on November 14 –

1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id.

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 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 15, 2018. Transcript (ECF Nos. 89-90). Following the submission of post-hearing briefs, I issued a ruling concluding that petitioners, on behalf of R.A., had established causation-in-fact and were therefore entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement filed August 31, 2020 (ECF No. 117).

Petitioners have now been appointed as guardians of R.A.’s estate and her person. Pet .Ex. 51; see also Pet. Mot. to Amend Case Caption filed October 15, 2020 (ECF No. 123); granted by Order filed October 15, 2020 (ECF No. 125).

On July 15, 2021, respondent filed a proffer on an award of compensation, which indicates petitioners’ agreement to compensation on the terms set forth therein. Proffer (ECF No. 143). The proffer is attached hereto as Appendix A.

Consistent with the terms of the proffer, I hereby award the following compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a):

A. A lump sum payment of $2,022,234.46, representing compensation for life care expenses in the first year after judgment ($615,688.80), lost future earnings ($1,156,545.66), and pain and suffering ($250,000.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioners as guardian(s)/ conservator(s) of the estate of R.A., for the benefit of R.A.

B. A lump sum payment of $84,643.06, representing compensation for past unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to petitioners, Saurabh Agarwal and Mukta Agarwal.

C. A lump sum payment of $812,257.97, representing compensation for satisfaction of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioners, and mailed to:

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services Bureau of Collections Technical Recovery Section P.O. Box 19174 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9174 Case No.: 94-238-0010641621 Attn: Tammy Roberts

Petitioners agree to endorse this payment to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

D. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract, subject to the conditions described in the proffer.

2 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the proffer and this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).

3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) SAURABH AGARWAL and MUKTA ) AGARWAL, guardians of the estate of ) RADHIKA AGARWAL, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) No. 16-191V ) Special Master Gowen SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ) ECF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________)

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

In his Ruling on Entitlement issued on August 31, 2020, Special Master Gowen found

that a preponderance of the evidence supported petitioners’ claim that after receiving the Tdap

and Menactra vaccinations on August 5, 2013, Radhika Agarwal (R.A.) developed autoimmune

limbic encephalitis (ALE) with the associated biomarker of GAD antibodies, and the residual

effects of cognitive deficits and intractable epilepsy. See Ruling on Entitlement (Document 117,

filed August 31, 2020). Respondent now proffers the following regarding the amount of

compensation to be awarded.1

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items

1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek review of the special master’s August 31, 2020 ruling on entitlement, finding petitioners entitled to an award under the Vaccine Act. This right accrues following issuance of the damages decision.

-1- Respondent engaged life care planner, M. Virginia Walton, M.S.N., RN, FNP, CLCP,

and petitioners engaged Maureen Clancy, RN, BSN, CLCP, to provide an estimation of R.A.’s

future vaccine-injury related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine related”

is as described in the Special Master’s Ruling on Entitlement. All items of compensation

identified in the life care plan are supported by the evidence and are illustrated by the chart

entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for R.A., attached hereto as Tab A. 2 Petitioners

agree.

B. Lost Future Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, R.A. will not be gainfully

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Agarwal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2021).

Agarwal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Agarwal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 300aa
42 U.S.C. § 300aa
§ 300aa-10
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10
§ 300aa-12
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f)
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a