United States Court of Federal Claims, 2024

Pittenger v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 20, 2024 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-807V

SARAH PITTENGER, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: November 14, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Madelyn Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On June 2, 2023, Sarah Pittenger filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine administered on April 10, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 26, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On October 29, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $123,027.26 (comprised of $122,500.00 for pain and suffering, and $527.26 for past unreimbursable expenses). Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $123,027.26 (comprised of $122,500.00 for pain and suffering, and $527.26 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

SARAH PITTENGER,

Petitioner, No. 23-807V

Chief Special Master Corcoran (SPU) v. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION 1 On June 2, 2023, Sarah Pittenger (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on April 10, 2022. Petition at 1.

On September 13, 2024, respondent file his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, concluding that petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, within the Table timeframe, and with no apparent alternative cause. ECF No. 26. On September 26, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 27.

I. Items of Compensation

A. Pain and Suffering Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $122,500.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $527.26. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.

These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.

II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s damages decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: 2 a lump sum payment of $123,027.26, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

III. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Sarah Pittenger: $123,027.26

Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Acting Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division TRACI R. PATTON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/Madylan L. Yarc MADYLAN L. YARC Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 [email protected] Tel.: (202) 742-6376

DATED: October 29, 2024

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact 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 redact 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after the Damages Decision is issued. 2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, respondent reserves the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.

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