D.S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedMay 10, 2017
Docket10-77
StatusPublished

This text of D.S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (D.S. 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.

Bluebook
D.S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2017).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 10, 2017 Reissued in Redacted Form: April 4, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D.S., * PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 10-77V v. * * Chief Special Master Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages Award; Proffer; Human AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Papillomavirus (“HPV”) Vaccine; * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); Respondent. * Miller-Fisher Variant; * Significant Aggravation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lisa Annette Roquemore, Law Office of Lisa A. Roquemore, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA for petitioner. Darryl R. Wishard, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On February 12, 2010, D.S. (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”).2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine (“Gardasil”) on or about February 21, 2007, she suffered from the Miller-Fisher variant of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) in April 2007. Petition at 2.

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 certain details in Tab A to the proffer redacted. 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 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

1 On May 19, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 135). On March 10, 2017, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”). Proffer by HHS (ECF No. 11), attached hereto as Appendix A. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner:

(1) A lump sum payment of $1,622,715.00, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($165,398.00); lost earnings ($1,100,00.00); pain and suffering ($250,000.00); and past un-reimbursable expenses ($107,317.00), in the form of a check made payable to petitioner, D.S.; and

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

Proffer at 2, 4.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT herewith.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 is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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

D.S.,

Petitioner,

v. No. 10-77V Chief Special Master Dorsey SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items

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

engaged Liz Holakiewicz, RN, BSN, CCM, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of D.S.’s future

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

described in the Chief Special Master’s Ruling on Entitlement, filed May 19, 2015. 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 D.S., attached hereto as Tab A. 1

Respondent proffers that D.S. should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in the life

care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab A. Petitioner agrees.

1 The chart at Tab A illustrates the annual benefits provided by the life care plan. The annual benefit years run from the date of judgment up to the first anniversary of the date of judgment, and every year thereafter up to the anniversary of the date of judgment.

-1- B. Lost Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, D.S. has suffered past loss of

earnings and will suffer a loss of earnings in the future. Therefore, respondent proffers that D.S.

should be awarded lost earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-

15(a)(3)(A). Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for D.S.’s lost earnings is

$1,100,000.00. Petitioner agrees.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that D.S. should be awarded $250,000.00 in actual pain and

suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses

Evidence supplied by petitioner documents her expenditure of past unreimbursable

expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be

awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $107,317.00. Petitioner agrees.

E. Medicaid Lien

Petitioner represents that there are no Medicaid liens outstanding against her.

II. Form of the Award

The parties recommend that the compensation provided to D.S. should be made through a

combination of lump sum payments and future annuity payments as described below, and request

that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: 2

A. A lump sum payment of $1,622,715.00, representing compensation for life care

expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($165,398.00), lost earnings

2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

-2- ($1,100,000.00), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses

($107,317.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, D.S.

B. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, 3 subject to the conditions

described below, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan,

as illustrated by the chart at Tab A, attached hereto, paid to the life insurance company 4 from

which the annuity will be purchased. 5 Compensation for Year Two (beginning on the first

anniversary of the date of judgment) and all subsequent years shall be provided through

respondent’s purchase of an annuity, which annuity shall make payments directly to petitioner,

D.S., only so long as D.S.

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

Related

§ 300aa
42 U.S.C. § 300aa
§ 300aa-
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
D.S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ds-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2017.