Garrison v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedApril 4, 2018
Docket14-762
StatusUnpublished

This text of Garrison v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Garrison 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
Garrison v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2018).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 5, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED KRISTINA GARRISON, * * No. 14-762V Petitioner, * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision on Damages; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Trivalent Influenza Vaccine; * Narcolepsy; Cataplexy; Hypocretin. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Curtis R. Webb, Twin Falls, ID, for petitioner. Ryan D. Pyles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON DAMAGES1

On August 22, 2014, Kristina Garrison (“petitioner” or “Ms. Garrison”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving a trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 28, 2011, she developed narcolepsy and cataplexy. See Petition at ¶ 1, 2 (ECF No. 1). Petitioner also alleges that she has, and will continue to suffer, effects of her narcolepsy and cataplexy. Id. at ¶ 16.

On April 2, 2015, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and a motion for a ruling on the record, stating that while she “agrees that petitioner’s appropriate diagnosis is narcolepsy with cataplexy,” she “concludes that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal relationship between the influenza vaccine and narcolepsy (with or without cataplexy).” Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Report”) (ECF No. 21). Nevertheless, although respondent recommends against compensation in this case, he “will not expend further resources to contest entitlement in this matter.” Id. Respondent moved for a decision on entitlement based on the record. Id. On October 27, 2015, I ruled that petitioner had established entitlement to compensation based on a theory of causation in fact. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 23).

1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this unpublished ruling 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 ruling 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 ruling. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the ruling will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. On March 2, 2018, respondent filed a Proffer on an award of compensation, which indicates petitioner’s agreement to compensation on the terms set forth therein. Proffer (ECF No. 96). The Proffer is attached hereto as Exhibit 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 $1,017,346.24 (representing compensation for lost past and future earnings ($757,886.00); pain and suffering ($220,973.00); past unreimbursable expenses ($19,450.24); and life care expenses for Year One ($19,037.00)), in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

B. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract as described in the Proffer, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the entry of judgment is expedited by the parties jointly or separately filing notice renouncing their right to seek review.

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

KRISTINA GARRISON,

Petitioner,

v. No. 14-762V Special Master Thomas L. Gowen SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

On October 29, 2015, the Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, concluding that

petitioner is entitled to compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

(“Vaccine Act”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§300aa-10 to -34. Respondent proffers that, based on

the Special Master’s entitlement decision and the evidence of record, petitioner should be

awarded the following items of compensation under the Vaccine Act.1

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items

The parties engaged life care planners Liz Kattman, BS, MS, and Laura Fox, MSN, BSN,

RN, CLCP, to provide an estimation of petitioner’s future vaccine injury-related needs.2 Based

1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, the parties waive their right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s October 29, 2015, entitlement decision. 2 For the purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine related” is as described in the Special Master’s decision dated October 29, 2015, and only pertains to petitioner’s narcolepsy with cataplexy and related sequelae. on the planners evaluations, the parties’ have come to a joint consensus regarding appropriate

items of care. All items of compensation identified by the parties’ life care plan are supported by

the evidence, and are illustrated by the chart entitled Summary of Life Care Items, dated January

31, 2018, attached hereto as Tab A. Respondent proffers that petitioner 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.
B. Lost Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, petitioner will never again be

gainfully employed. Therefore, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded lost past

and future earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A).

Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for petitioner’s lost past and future earnings is

$757,886.00. This amount reflects that the award for lost future earnings has been reduced to net

present value. Petitioner agrees.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $220,973.00 for actual and

projected pain, suffering, and emotional distress. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This amount

reflects that the award for projected pain and suffering has been reduced to net present value.

Petitioner agrees.

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

Related

§ 300aa-1
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1
§ 300aa-10
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10
§ 300aa-12
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garrison v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrison-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2018.