S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJanuary 14, 2020
Docket14-851
StatusUnpublished

This text of S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (S. 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
S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2020).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-851V (Not to be published)

************************* * Special Master Corcoran J.S., * * Petitioner, * Filed: September 24, 2019 * v. * * Decision by Proffer; Damages; Loss of SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Future Earnings; Pain and Suffering; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Life Care Expenses * Respondent. * * *************************

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

Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On September 15, 2014, J.S. filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that he suffered from transverse myelitis as a result of the flu vaccine he received on September 23, 2011. Id. at 1. Petitioner later amended his claim to state that, in the alternative, receiving the flu vaccine caused a significant aggravation of an underlying neurological condition. (ECF No. 32). Respondent

1 Although not formally designated for publication, this Decision will 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 (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). claimed that Petitioner was not entitled to compensation in his Rule 4(c) Report filed on October 30, 2013. (ECF No. 14).

For the next several years the parties litigated this matter. They submitted expert reports, pre-hearing briefs, and an entitlement hearing was held on September 28, 2017. (ECF Nos. 19, 24, 28, 31, 33, 37, and 38). Then, on April 9, 2018, I issued a Decision on Entitlement—holding that Petitioner had established his prima facie case, and directing the parties to begin the resolving the amount of damages. (ECF No. 55).

Thereafter the parties focused on resolving damages. Respondent has now filed a proffer proposing an award of compensation. (ECF No. 84) (“Proffer”). 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 $902,401.49, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($185,058.17); lost earnings ($452,407.53); pain and suffering ($250,000.00); and past unreimbursable expenses ($14,935.79), in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; and

• An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the conditions described in Section II.B. of the Proffer and illustrated by the chart at Tab A of the Proffer. (ECF No. 84-1).

Proffer at 4. 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

,

Petitioner,

v. No. 14-851V Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

In his Ruling on Entitlement issued on April 9, 2018, the Special Master found that a

preponderance of the evidence supported (“petitioner’s”) claim that the influenza

vaccine administered to him on September 23, 2011, caused his transverse myelitis. Respondent

now proffers the following regarding the amount of compensation to be awarded. 1

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

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. All items of compensation

identified in the life care plan are supported by the evidence, and are illustrated by the chart

1 The parties have no objection to the amount of 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 review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s April 9, 2018, Ruling on Entitlement.

-1- entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for , attached hereto as Tab A. 2

Respondent proffers that should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in

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

B. Lost Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, has suffered past

loss of earnings and will suffer a loss of earnings in the future. Therefore, respondent proffers

that 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 lost

earnings is $452,407.53. Petitioner agrees.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that should be awarded $250,000.00 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). Petitioner

agrees.

D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses

Evidence supplied by petitioner documents his expenditure of past unreimbursable

expenses related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be

awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $14,935.79.

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)
S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2020.