Odom v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-865V Filed: May 21, 2015 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED RONDA ODOM, * * Special Master Dorsey Petitioner, * * v. * * Decision on Proffer; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular- AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Pertussis (DTaP) Vaccine; Shoulder * Pain (SIRVA).

Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John Robert Howie, Jr., Howie Law, P.C., Dallas, TX, for petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 1, 2013, Ronda Odom (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006). Petitioner alleged that she suffered pain in her left shoulder secondary to a Diphtheria- Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine she received in her left arm on August 30, 2012.

See Petition at 1.

On February 11, 2014, respondent filed a report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) conceding Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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).

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report at 3-5. Specifically, respondent stated that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 4.

On May 21, 2015, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”). In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer (Appendix A), the undersigned awards petitioner: A lump sum of $754,816.83, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ronda Odom. This amount represents compensation for lost earnings ($653,922.50), pain and suffering ($100,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($894.33).

Proffer ¶ II.

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.

s/ Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master

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