Lozano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJanuary 7, 2019
Docket15-369
StatusUnpublished

This text of Lozano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Lozano 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
Lozano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2019).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-369V (Not to be published)

************************* * Special Master Corcoran CARMEN MORENO LOZANO, * * Petitioner, * Filed: November 28, 2018 * v. * * Decision by Proffer; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“ADEM”); Diptheria-Tetanus-Acelluar * Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Life Care Plan. Respondent. * * *************************

Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Robert P. Coleman, III, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On April 13, 2015, Carmen Moreno Lozano filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that she developed acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) as a result of the diptheria-tetanus- acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on July 15, 2012. Id. at 1.

On July 21, 2015, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, in which he indicated that he did not find this case to be appropriate for compensation. The parties briefly attempted to engage in

1 This Decision will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and in accordance with the E- Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public in its current form. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). settlement negotiations but were unable to reach an agreement. Both parties filed expert reports, medical literature, and prehearing briefs over the coming months, and an entitlement hearing was held on June 14, 2017.

On August 4, 2017, I issued a ruling finding that Mrs. Lozano had successfully demonstrated entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 43. In an order filed that same day, I directed the parties to resolve the question of what damages Ms. Lozano should receive. Damages Order, ECF No. 44.

After almost sixteen months of damages negotiations, Respondent filed a proffer proposing an award of compensation. ECF No. 71. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that Respondent’s Proffer (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.

The Proffer proposes:

• A lump sum payment of $1,199,216.86, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($17,131.66), lost earnings ($922,617.19), pain and suffering ($200,000.00), and past unreimburseable expenses ($59,468.01), in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; and

• An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the conditions described in the attached Proffer (see Proffer at 3; Proffer App’x A at 1–4), that will provide periodic payments to Ms. Lozano for the items contained in the life care plan.

Proffer at 3. These amounts represent compensation for all elements of compensation under Vaccine Act Section 15(a) to which Petitioner is entitled.

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. 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.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.

2 Case 1:15-vv-00369-UNJ Document 71 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 5

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

CARMEN MORENO LOZANO,

Petitioner,

v. No. 15-369V ECF Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 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, CNLCP, and

petitioner engaged Maureen Clancy, RN, BSN, CLCP, to provide an estimation of Carmen

Moreno Lozano’s future vaccine-injury related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term

“vaccine related” is as described in the Special Master’s Ruling on Entitlement, filed August 4,

2017. 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 Carmen Moreno

Lozano, attached hereto as Tab A. 1 Respondent proffers that Carmen Moreno Lozano should be

awarded all items of compensation set forth in the life care plan and illustrated by the chart

attached at Tab A. 2 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.

2 The parties have no objection to the proffered award of damages. Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, the parties intend to waive their right to seek review of such damages decision, recognizing that respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek -1- Case 1:15-vv-00369-UNJ Document 71 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 5

B. Lost Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, Carmen Moreno Lozano has

suffered past loss of earnings and will suffer a loss of earnings in the future. Therefore,

respondent proffers that Carmen Moreno Lozano 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 Carmen Moreno Lozano’s lost earnings is $922,617.19. Petitioner agrees.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that Carmen Moreno Lozano should be awarded $200,000.00 in

actual and projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any award for projected pain

and suffering has been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C.

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

Related

§ 300aa-10
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10
§ 300aa-12
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B)
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lozano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lozano-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2019.