Price v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided October 5, 2018·No. 11-442·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 10, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * TABITHA PRICE, as Mother and * UNPUBLISHED Natural Guardian of D.P., * * Special Master Gowen Petitioner, * * No. 11-442V v. * Proffer; DTaP; MMR; * Prevnar; Anaphylactic SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Reaction; Seizure AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Disorder; Developmental Respondent. * Delay. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clifford John Shoemaker, Shoemaker and Associates, Vienna, VA, for petitioner. Robert Paul Coleman, III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON PROFFER1

On July 7, 2011, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”), as mother and natural guardian of D.P. Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular-Pertussis (“DTaP”), Measles-Mumps-Rubella (“MMR”) and Pneumococcal Conjugate (“Prevnar”) vaccines on August 4, 2008, D.P. had a severe anaphylactic reaction within two minutes of the vaccinations, which caused him to suffer a grand mal seizure. Petitioner further alleged that several hours later D.P. experienced more seizures and subsequently developed a seizure disorder and secondary developmental delay. Id.

On April 19, 2012, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report in which he contested entitlement to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report (ECF No. 24). An entitlement hearing was

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the decision 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 decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website. Id. 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). held on September 19, 2014, and a ruling on entitlement was issued on October 29, 2015, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 91).

Counsel for the parties have worked extensively with their experts and have come to a resolution of damages. Their respective life care planners have agreed on future care issues and costs, lost future earnings, pain and suffering, past unreimbursable expenses, and the satisfaction of a State of Georgia WellCare Medicaid lien. On September 7, 2018, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded: (1) a lump sum payment of $1,250,898.64, representing compensation for lost earnings ($889,283.44), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and life care expenses for Year One ($111,615.20); (2) a lump sum payment of $17,342.98, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Georgia WellCare Medicaid lien; and (3) an amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in the Proffer. Proffer at 3-4 (ECF No. 187).

Respondent represented in the Proffer that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. I have reviewed the proffer and do award damages in accord with it. The Proffer is incorporated herein and made a part hereof as Appendix A. Based on the record as a whole, I find that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner the following in compensation:

A. A lump sum payment of $1,250,898.64, representing compensation for lost earnings ($889,283.44), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and life care expenses for Year One ($111,615.20), in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of D.P., for the benefit of D.P. No payments shall be made until petitioner provides respondent with documentation establishing that she has been appointed as the guardian/conservator of D.P.’s estate. If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/conservator of the estate of D.P., any such payment shall be made to the party or parties appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of D.P. upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.3

B. A lump sum payment of $17,342.98, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Georgia WellCare Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and

Equian, LLC P.O. Box 32140 Louisville, KY 40232-2140 Equian File No.: 744984-116716 Attn: Stephen Snabb

Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Equian, LLC.

3 Petitioner is directed to act expeditiously to have an appropriate guardian appointed in Georgia so that payments under the Proffer may be made.

2 C. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract as described in Section II. C of the Proffer attached herein as Appendix A, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the chart attached as Tab A to 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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) TABITHA PRICE, as Mother and Natural ) Guardian of D.P., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 11-442V ) Special Master Gowen SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ) ECF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________)

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items

The respondent engaged life care planner, Laura E. Fox, MSN, RN, CDDN, CNLCP, and

petitioner engaged Tresa Johnson, RN, BSN, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of D.P.’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 October 29, 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 D.P., attached hereto as Tab A. 1

Respondent proffers that D.P. 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.

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

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

Price v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Price 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(f)
§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(B)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a