United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

Egroff v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 22, 2014 · Laura D Millman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-415V

April 30, 2014

Not to be Published

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

PATRICIA EGROFF, * *

Petitioner, * * v. * Damages decision based on proffer; * influenza vaccine; brachial neuritis *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * *

Respondent. * * *****************************

Mark T. Sadaka, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.

Althea W. Davis, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION 1

Petitioner filed a petition on June 25, 2013, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2006). Petitioner alleges that influenza vaccine she received on December 9, 2011 caused her brachial neuritis. On November 21, 2013, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding liability and recommending that petitioner receive compensation.

On April 30, 2014, respondent filed Respondent’s Proffer on Award of Compensation. The undersigned finds the terms of the proffer to be reasonable. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to the award as stated in the proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached proffer, the court awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, representing compensation for actual and projected expenses and pain and suffering. The award shall be in the form of a check made payable 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. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 s/Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman Special Master

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access. 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.