United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Wilson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 28, 2015 · Denise Kathryn Vowell

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-049V Filed: May 7, 2015

**************************** VIOLET WILSON, *

* *

Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;

* Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis v. * (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury Related to

* Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

**************************** Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner. Justine Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On January 20, 2015, Violet Wilson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq, 2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of a Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on July 1, 2014, petitioner suffered a “shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.” Petition at ¶10. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 8, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. On May 7, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) detailing compensation for all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under §15(a). According to respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to the proposed award of compensation.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump sum payment of $80,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under §15(a).

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Denise K. Vowell Denise K. Vowell Chief Special Master

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

VIOLET WILSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

) No. 15-49V v. ) Chief Special Master Vowell

) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ) SPU HUMAN SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION I. Items of Compensation

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 1 Petitioner agrees.

II. Form of the Award

The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $80,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.

Respectfully submitted, BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General RUPA BHATTACHARYYA Director Torts Branch, Civil Division VINCENT J. MATANOSKI Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division GLENN A. MACLEOD Senior Trial Counsel Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ Justine Walters JUSTINE WALTERS Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel.: (202) 307-6393

DATE: May 7, 2015

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete such material from public access. 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 (2006). 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

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