Devingo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Devingo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Devingo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-754V Filed: January 4, 2018 UNPUBLISHED
RONALD DEVINGO, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Petitioner, Damages Decision Based on Proffer; v. Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Administration (SIRVA) HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Carol L. Gallagher, Linwood, NJ, for petitioner. Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On June 8, 2017, 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 he received an influenza vaccine on November 12, 2015, and thereafter suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 4, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for his shoulder injury. On January 3, 2018 respondent filed a combined Rule 4 report/proffer on award of compensation (“Rule 4/Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $85,000.00. Rule 4/Proffer at 3. In the Rule 4/Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Based on the
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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 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 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). record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Rule 4/Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Rule 4/Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ronald Devingo. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Devingo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devingo-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2018.