Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided November 14, 2023·No. 21-1474·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1474V

GREGGORY DAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: October 13, 2023 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Michael Adly Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm PLLC, San Antonia, TX, for Petitioner.

Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On June 15, 2021, Greggory Davis 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 he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) which meets the Table definition for GBS or which, in the alternative, was caused-in-fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 13, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶ 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 29, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for his GBS. On October 12, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of

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). compensation (“Proffer”). ECF No. 75. Respondent proffers that the following should be awarded:

A. All items of compensation set forth in Respondent’s life care plan illustrated by the chart entitled Appendix A and attached to the Proffer as Tab A;

B. The amount of $216,046.00, representing compensation for Petitioner’s past and future lost wages;

C. The amount of $250,000.00, representing compensation for Petitioner’s actual and projected pain and suffering;3 and

D. The amount of $30,700.00, representing compensation for Petitioner’s past unreimbursable expenses.

Id. at 2-3. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the following is awarded:

A. A lump sum in the amount of $584,311.07, representing compensation in the amount of $87,565.07 for life care expenses in the first year after judgment, compensation in the amount of $216,046.00 for actual and projected lost wages, compensation in the amount of $250,000.00 for actual pain and suffering,4 and compensation in the amount of $30,700.00 for actual unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, Greggory Davis; and

3 Although the parties agree Petitioner is entitled to a greater amount of compensation for his pain and

suffering, the Vaccine Act contains a statutory cap which limits any pain and suffering amount to $250,000.00. Section 15(a)(4). This cap is applied first before any portion designated for future pain and suffering is reduced to net present value as required by Section 15(f)(4)(A). See Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 522, 554-55 (Fed. Cir. 1994); P.H. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1112V, 2017 WL 3598108 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28, 2017). However, the parties agree that at least $250,000.00 is being paid for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering. See Informal Remark, dated Oct. 13, 2023. Thus, no further reduction to net present value is required.

4 Although the parties agree Petitioner is entitled to a future pain and suffering award, compensation for

only actual pain and suffering is being awarded due solely to the limitation imposed by the Vaccine Act’s statutory cap set forth in Section 15(a)(4). See Supra note 3.

2 B. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in Section II.B of the Proffer.

These amounts represent 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.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

5 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.

3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

) GREGGORY DAVIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 21-1474V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) )

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

On June 15, 2021, Greggory Davis (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under

the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”

or “Act”), alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from an

influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received on October 13, 2020. Petition at 1. On July 11, 2022,

the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Rule 4(c) Report conceding

that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the

Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for GBS following flu vaccination. 42 C.F.R.

§§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), 100.3(c)(15), and that he is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 35.

Accordingly, on July 29, 2022, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding

that petitioner is entitled to vaccine compensation for GBS following the flu vaccine he received

on October 13, 2020. ECF No. 36.

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items

Respondent engaged life care planner Linda Curtis, RN, MS, CNLCP, CCM, and

petitioner engaged Misty L. Coffman, RN, CLNC, MSCC, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of petitioner’s future vaccine-injury related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term

“vaccine related” is as described in the respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. All items of

compensation identified in respondent’s life care plan are supported by the evidence, and are

illustrated by the chart entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Greggory Davis,

attached hereto as Tab A. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded all items of

compensation set forth in respondent’s life care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab

A. Petitioner agrees.
B. Lost Earnings

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

Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2023).

Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Davis 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-1
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1
§ 300aa-10
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a