B. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Federal Claims

B. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided March 14, 2019·No. 16-763·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-0763V Originally Filed: December 11, 2018 Refiled in Redacted Form: March 8, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

L.B.,

Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint Stipulation on Damages; Influenza SECRETARY OF HEALTH (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury AND HUMAN SERVICES, Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Respondent.

Lisa Annette Roquemore, Law Office, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, for petitioner. Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On June 29, 2016, petitioner 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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on October 28, 2013. Petition at 2; Stipulation, filed December 11, 2018, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Petition at 8; Stipulation at ¶ 5. Respondent states that “[t]here is a not a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s condition is due to a factor unrelated to vaccination.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. The stipulation further states that “[a]ccordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation under the terms of the Vaccine Act for her SIRVA. Therefore, a decision should be entered awarding compensation described in paragraph 9 of this stipulation.” Stipulation at ¶ 8.

1 When this decision was originally filed the undersigned advised her intent to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This decision is being reissued with the requested redactions. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On October 4, 2016, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. On December 11, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned awards the following compensation:

a. A lump sum of $534,580.99, which amount represents compensation for first year life care expenses ($15,100.54), lost earnings ($378,829.20), pain and suffering ($135,000.00) and past unreimbursable expenses ($5,651.25) in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

b. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 11 of the attached Stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased. Stipulation at ¶ 9.

These amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

3 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.

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

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-0763V Originally Filed: December 11, 2018 Refiled in Redacted Form: March 8, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

L.B.,

Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint Stipulation on Damages; Influenza SECRETARY OF HEALTH (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury AND HUMAN SERVICES, Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Respondent.

Lisa Annette Roquemore, Law Office, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, for petitioner. Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On June 29, 2016, petitioner 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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on October 28, 2013. Petition at 2; Stipulation, filed December 11, 2018, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Petition at 8; Stipulation at ¶ 5. Respondent states that “[t]here is a not a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s condition is due to a factor unrelated to vaccination.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. The stipulation further states that “[a]ccordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation under the terms of the Vaccine Act for her SIRVA. Therefore, a decision should be entered awarding compensation described in paragraph 9 of this stipulation.” Stipulation at ¶ 8.

1 When this decision was originally filed the undersigned advised her intent to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This decision is being reissued with the requested redactions. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On October 4, 2016, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. On December 11, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned awards the following compensation:

a. A lump sum of $534,580.99, which amount represents compensation for first year life care expenses ($15,100.54), lost earnings ($378,829.20), pain and suffering ($135,000.00) and past unreimbursable expenses ($5,651.25) in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

b. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 11 of the attached Stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased. Stipulation at ¶ 9.

These amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

3 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.

B. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2019).

Pincite

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