Lewis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided August 20, 2018·No. 14-1035·Unpublished

Opinion

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

******************** * RAZENE LEWIS, * * No. 14-1035V Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran * v. * Filed: July 23, 2018 * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages; decision based on proffer; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine; * brachial neuritis. Respondent. * ******************** *

Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for Petitioner; Darryl R. Wishard, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 24, 2014, Razene Lewis filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq., alleging that the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination she received on October 25, 2012, caused her to suffer brachial neuritis. On October 13, 2015, the undersigned determined that Ms. Lewis is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.

Following the ruling on entitlement, the parties began working towards reaching resolution of Ms. Lewis’s damages award. The parties were able to reach an agreement on a joint life care plan (exhibit E). The costs associated with this agreed-upon life care plan are attached to this decision as Appendix A. In addition, on July 31, 2017, special master George Hastings entered an interim 1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. award of $250,000.00 in damages for Ms. Lewis’s pain and suffering. Thus Ms. Lewis is not entitled to any additional compensation for her pain and suffering. 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a)(4).

The parties disputed Ms. Lewis’s compensation for lost earnings and actual unreimbursable expenses. A hearing was held on November 17, 2017. Based on the findings from that hearing, issued on November 21, 2017, the parties agreed on an award of $1,612,179.00 for Ms. Lewis’s lost earnings, however additional evidence was necessary for calculating Ms. Lewis’s actual unreimbursable expenses. That evidence was entered into the record in the months following the hearing and the undersigned issued a supplemental findings of fact on June 28, 2018. Based on those findings of fact, the parties agreed to an award of $33,334.31 for Ms. Lewis’s actual unreimbursable expenses.

On July 11, 2018, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, to which petitioner agrees.2 Based upon the record as a whole, the undersigned finds the proffer reasonable and that the petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the attached Proffer, attached as Appendix B, the court awards petitioner:

1. A lump sum payment of $1,861,209.52 representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($215,696.21), lost earnings ($1,612,179.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($33,334.31), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Razene Lewis; and

2. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the conditions described in the attached Proffer (attached as Appendix B), that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the chart (attached as Appendix A), 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, Razene Lewis, only so long as Razene Lewis is alive at the time a particular payment is due. At the Secretary’s sole discretion, the periodic payments may be provided to

2 The petitioner has noted that she may challenge, on appeal, the factual findings that served as a basis for the loss of future earnings calculation contained in the Proffer. petitioner in monthly, quarterly, annual, or other installments. The “annual amounts” set forth in the chart in Appendix A 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 is directed to enter judgment in case 14-1035V according to this decision and the attached proffer.3

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Matthew Ginther, at (202) 357-6360.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.

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

Lewis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2018).

Lewis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Lewis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 300aa-1
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1
§ 300aa-12
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a