I.D. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 0

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedApril 26, 2013
Docket04-1593V
StatusPublished

This text of I.D. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 0 (I.D. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 0) 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
I.D. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 0, (uscfc 2013).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

************************* I.D., * No. 04-1593V * The Honorable Susan G. Braden Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran * v. * Filed: April 26, 2013 * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages; decision based on proffer; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * hepatitis B vaccine; chronic fatigue * syndrome Respondent. * *************************

Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., McLean, VA, and Mark Greenspan, Norfolk, VA, for petitioner; Heather L. Pearlman, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

PUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 25, 2004, I.D.’s parents filed a petition on I.D.’s behalf seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq., alleging that a dose of the hepatitis B vaccination caused I.D. to develop chronic fatigue syndrome. On April 22, 2011, the United States Court of Federal Claims determined that I.D. is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act. On April 19, 2013, the undersigned issued a ruling regarding damages.

On April 26, 2013, respondent filed a Status Report on Award of Compensation, to which petitioner agrees. This status report is construed as a Proffer on Award of Compensation. Based upon the record as a whole, the special master finds the proffer reasonable and that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in therein. Pursuant to the attached proffer, the court awards petitioner:

1 At a status conference held on April 26, 2013, petitioner orally moved for redaction of petitioner’s name to petitioner’s initials. Respondent indicated that she took no position on petitioner’s request. Petitioner’s oral motion was granted. Within 14 days, the parties may move for additional redactions in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4) and Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, this decision will be posted on the Court’s website in accord with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. 1. A lump sum payment of $1,076,412.15 representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($40,357.92), lost future earnings ($838,566.45), pain and suffering ($194,580.48), and past unreimbursable expenses ($2,907.30), in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

2. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the conditions described in the attached Proffer (attached as Appendix A), that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the proffer’s chart, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased. 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, only so long as petitioner is alive at the time a particular payment is due. At the Secretary’s sole discretion, the periodic payments may be provided to petitioner in monthly, quarterly, annual, or other installments. The “annual amounts” set forth in the proffer’s chart describe only the total yearly sum to be paid to petitioner and do not require that the payment be made in one annual installment.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to provide a copy of this decision to the presiding judge. Vaccine Rule 28.1(a).

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Jay All, at (202) 357-6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christian J. Moran ____________________________ Christian J. Moran Special Master

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-12
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
I.D. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 0, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/id-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-0-uscfc-2013.