McCulloch v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided January 5, 2017·No. 09-293·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Case No. 09-293V

Filed: November 28, 2016

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RACHAEL MCCULLOCH as parent and * legal guardian of A.M., *

*

Petitioner, * Decision on Damages;

v. * Human Papillomavirus Vaccine * (“HPV”/”Gardasil”); Autoimmune SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Limbic Encephalitis; Intractable Epilepsy; AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., for petitioner. Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON DAMAGES1

Gowen, Special Master:

On May 11, 2009, Rachael McCulloch (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on behalf of her minor child, A.M., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “the Program”). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving a Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”/”Gardasil”) vaccine on August 16, 2007, A.M. developed a severe neurological injury. On December 7, 2009, petitioner filed an 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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 has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

Amended Petition alleging that the HPV vaccine caused A.M. to develop encephalitis, intractable epilepsy, and subsequent developmental delays. See Amended Petition at Preamble. The undersigned issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation based on an injury caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine on May 22, 2015.

On November 28, 2016, respondent filed a Proffer on an award of compensation, indicating that petitioner has agreed to compensation as follows: $1,055,056.01 for A.M.’s lost earnings; $250,000.00 in actual and projected pain and suffering; $41,216.61 in past unreimbursable expenses; and $58,535.37 to satisfy a State of Florida Medicaid lien. See Proffer, filed Nov. 28, 2016, at 2-3.

Pursuant to the terms in the attached Proffer, attached hereto as Appendix A, the undersigned awards petitioner the following compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a):

1. A lump sum payment of $1,428,188.00, representing compensation for lost earnings ($1,055,056.01), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and life care expenses for Year One ($123,131.99), in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian of A.M. for the benefit of A.M.;

2. A lump sum payment of $41,216.61, representing compensation for past unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to petitioner;

3. A lump sum payment of $58,535.37, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Florida Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Florida Medicaid Casualty Recovery Program P.O. 12188

Tallahassee, FL 32317-2188 Attn: Marquis Grissom

Case No: 604902

4. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in section II, paragraph D of the Proffer, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased.

Proffer at 3-5.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

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

************************************* RACHAEL MCCULLOCH, parent of * A.M., *

*

Petitioner, * No. 09-293V * SPECIAL MASTER v. * THOMAS L. GOWEN

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*************************************

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation1

A. Life Care Items

The respondent engaged life care planner, Linda Curtis, RN, MS, CCM, CNCLP, and

petitioner engaged Maureen Clancy, RN, BSN, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of A.M.’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 May 22, 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 A.M., attached hereto as Tab A.2

1 Should A.M. die prior to the 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 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.

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

care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab A.3 Petitioner agrees.

B. Lost Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, A.M. has suffered a loss of

earnings in the past and will not be gainfully employed in the future. Therefore, respondent

proffers that A.M. should be awarded full lost earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(B). Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for A.M.'s lost

earnings is $1,055,056.01. Petitioner agrees.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that A.M. should be awarded $250,000.00 in actual and projected

pain and suffering. This amount reflects that the award for projected pain and suffering has been

reduced to net present value. 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 A.M.'s vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be

awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $41,216.61. Petitioner agrees.

E. Medicaid Lien

Respondent proffers that A.M. should be awarded funds to satisfy a State of Florida lien

in the amount of $58,535.37, which represents full satisfaction of any right of subrogation,

3 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 her right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s May 22, 2015, decision finding petitioner entitled to an award under the Vaccine Act.

assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of Florida may have against any individual

as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of Florida has made to or on behalf of A.M. from

the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her

vaccine-related injury suffered on or about June 8, 2007 and/or August 16, 2007, under Title

XIX of the Social Security Act.

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

McCulloch v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2017).

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

Related

§ 300aa
42 U.S.C. § 300aa
§ 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