Churchwell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-798V Filed: February 8, 2017 * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED SHANNON CHURCHWELL As Parent * and Legal Representative of her Minor Son, * R.C.B., * * Petitioner, * Special Master Gowen * v. * Joint Stipulation on Damages; * Diphtheria, Tetanus, Acellular SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Pertussis (“DTaP”); Pneumococcal AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Conjugate (“PCV-13”); * Haemophilus Influenzae Respondent. * Type B (“Hib”); Pentavalent * Rotavirus (“RTQ”); Polio (“IPV”); * * * * * * * * * * * * * Influenza (“Flu”); Seizure Disorder Ramon Rodriguez, III, Rawls, McNelis and Mitchell, P.C., Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Adriana R. Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 2, 2014, Shannon Churchwell (“petitioner”) filed a petition on behalf of her minor son, R.C.B., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (“DTaP”), pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV-13”), haemophilus influenzae type B (“Hib”), pentavalent rotavirus (“RTQ”), polio (“IPV”), and seasonal influenza (“Flu”) vaccines on September 20, 2011, R.C.B. developed a seizure disorder. Petition at 1-2.

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, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (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.

On February 7, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Respondent denies that R.C.B.’s alleged seizure disorder was caused-in-fact by his September 20, 2011, vaccines and further denies that the vaccines caused R.C.B. any other injury or his current condition. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following in compensation: a. A lump sum of $2,040.95, representing compensation for full satisfaction of the State of Nevada Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and: Optum, Inc. Optum Subrogation Services Remittance Drive, Suite 6019 Chicago, IL 60675-6019 Optum File # SN11124659 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Optum, Inc. b. A lump sum payment of $2,016.55 representing compensation for full satisfaction of the state of Oregon Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and: Subrogation Services, Inc. Country Club Road Eugene, OR 97401 c. A lump sum of $26,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of R.C.B.’s estate. This amount represents compensation for all remaining damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

Id. at ¶ 8.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.

Accordingly, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Special Master