Reilly v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedDecember 1, 2017
Docket09-489
StatusUnpublished

This text of Reilly v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Reilly 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
Reilly v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2017).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 09-489V Filed: November 6, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DULCE AND SEAN REILLY, parents * Special Master Sanders and natural guardians of E.R., a minor, * * Decision on Proffer; Damages; Diphtheria- * Tetanus-Acellular-Pertussis (“DTaP”) Petitioners, * Vaccine; Infantile Spasms. * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for Petitioners. Ryan D. Pyles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On July 27, 2009, Dulce and Sean Reilly (“Petitioners”) filed a petition on behalf of their minor child, E.R., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). Petitioners allege that the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular-pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine administered on June 21, 2007 caused E.R. to suffer from a seizure disorder. Ruling Entitlement (May 31, 2016) at 1-2, ECF No. 107.

1 This decision shall be posted 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access. 2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman issued a Ruling on Entitlement on May 31, 2016. Id. She held that Petitioners’ theory and medical records satisfied the three-prong test in Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 418 F.2d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and Petitioners were therefore entitled to compensation. Id. at 19-22.

On June 22, 2016, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman issued a Damages Order encouraging the parties to identify and provide information that will be “necessary to assess the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in this case.” Dam. Order at 7, ECF No. 111. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on January 10, 2017. Not. Reassignment, ECF No. 115.

Respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”) on November 2, 2017. Proffer, ECF No. 126. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that Petitioners are entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, attached as Appendix A, the undersigned awards Petitioners:

A. A lump sum payment of $1,268,787.00, (representing compensation for lost future earnings ($750,984.00), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and life care expenses for Year One ($267,803.00)), in the form of a check payable to [P]etitioners as guardians/conservators of the estate of E.R., for the benefit of E.R.; and

B. A lump sum payment of $130,000.00, representing compensation for past unreimbursable expenses, [in the form of a check] payable to Dulce Reilly and Sean Reilly, [P]etitioners; and

C. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the conditions described [in Section II.C.], that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the chart [attached to the Proffer], and paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased.

Proffer 3-5.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

2 s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master

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

DULCE and SEAN REILLY, parents and natural guardians of E.R., a minor,

Petitioners, No. 09-489V v. Special Master Herbrina Sanders ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

Respondent submits the following recommendations regarding items of compensation to

be awarded under the Vaccine Act.

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items

The parties engaged life care planners Tresa Johnson, RN, BSN, CNLCP, and M.

Virginia Walton, RN, MSN, FNP, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of E.R.’s future

vaccine-injury related needs, and the parties’ planners came to a joint consensus regarding

appropriate items of care. All items of compensation identified by the parties’ joint life care plan

dated October 25, 2017, are supported by the evidence, and are illustrated by the chart entitled

Summary of Life Care Items, attached hereto as Tab A. Respondent proffers that E.R. should be

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

attached at Tab A. Petitioners agree.

1 B. Lost Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, E.R. will never be gainfully

employed. Therefore, respondent proffers that E.R. 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 E.R.’s lost future earnings is $750,984.00 at net present value. Petitioners

agree.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that E.R. should be awarded $250,000.00 for actual pain, suffering,

and emotional distress, consistent with the statutory cap on awards for this element of damages.

See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioners agree.

D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses

Evidence supplied by petitioners document their expenditure of past unreimbursable

expenses related to E.R.’s vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioners should be

awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $130,000.00. Petitioners agree.

E. Medicaid Lien

To the best of respondent’s knowledge and upon the representation of petitioners, E.R.

has never received Medicaid benefits. Accordingly, there is no Medicaid lien.

F. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

This proffer does not address final attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioners are entitled to

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, to be determined at a later date upon petitioners filing

substantiating documentation.

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

Related

United States v. George Clayton, Jr.
418 F.2d 1274 (Sixth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Reilly v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilly-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2017.