Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided March 16, 2020·No. 13-253·Unpublished

Opinion

Case 1:13-vv-00253-UNJ Document 142 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 9

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-253V Filed: February 18, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, as the * UNPUBLISHED Parent and Natural Guardian of * C.R., a Minor, * * Decision on Damages; Diphtheria-Tetanus- Petitioners, * Acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”); Measles v. * Mumps Rubella (“MMR”), Polio and * Varicella Vaccinations; Juvenile SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dermatomyositis; Proffer AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark T. Sadaka, Esq., Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner. Linda S. Renzi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Roth, Special Master:

On April 9, 2013, William and Brenda Rodriguez (“petitioners”) filed a petition on behalf of their minor child, C.R., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.2 (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”). Petitioners allege that C.R. developed juvenile dermatomyositis (“JDM”) as a result of the Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”), Measles-Mumps-Rubella (“MMR”), Polio, and Varicella vaccinations he received on August 30, 2011. See Petition, ECF No. 1. An entitlement hearing was held on May

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the 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. Id. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (1986). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 1 Case 1:13-vv-00253-UNJ Document 142 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 9

23-24, 2016 in Atlanta, GA; on October 26, 2017, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioners3 were entitled to compensation. See Ruling on Entitlement, ECF No. 116.

Respondent filed a proffer on February 14, 2020, agreeing to issue the following payments. Proffer, ECF No. 141.

1. A lump sum payment of $99,204.68, representing compensation for pain and suffering ($85,000.00), and life care expenses for Year One ($14,204.68), in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of C.R., for the benefit of C.R.;4

2. A lump sum of $51,188.03, 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.: 449353-116714 Attn: Lauren Hirsch

Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Equian, LLC; and

3. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract as described in section II. C. of the attached proffer.

These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt respondent’s proffer attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

3 On January 21, 2020, the caption was amended in this matter to only include William Rodriguez as petitioner of record in this matter. See Order, ECF No. 140. 4 No payments shall be made until petitioner provides respondent with documentation establishing that he has been appointed as the guardian/conservator of C.R.’s estate. If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/conservator of the estate of C.R., any such payment shall be made to the party or parties appointed by the court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of C.R. upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary. 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:13-vv-00253-UNJ Document 142 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, as the Parent and ) Natural Guardian of C.R., a Minor, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 13-253V ) Special Master Roth 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 parties engaged Linda Curtis RN, MS, CCM, CNLCP, as a joint life care planner to

provide an estimation of C.R.’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 26, 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

C.R., attached hereto as Tab A. 1 Respondent proffers that C.R. 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 waive their right to seek -1- Case 1:13-vv-00253-UNJ Document 142 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 9

B. Lost Future Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, C.R. will more likely than not

be gainfully employed in the future. Therefore, respondent proffers that C.R. should not be

awarded lost future earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(B).

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that C.R. should be awarded $85,000.00 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. § 300aa-15(a)(4).

D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses

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

Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2020).

Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Rodriguez 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)(3)(B)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a