United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Molter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 1, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

&RUUHFWHG

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1719V

DAVID MOLTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, v. Filed: February 28, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for

Petitioner.

Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON DAMAGES1

On October 3, 2023, David Molter filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on January 12, 2022. Petition (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 7, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On February 27, 2025, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. at 2. 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, Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $46,587.63 (representing $45,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $1,587.63), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Proffer at 2. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

2 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

DAVID MOLTER,

Petitioner, v. No. 23-1719V

Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 3, 2023, David Molter (“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 he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on January 12, 2022. Petition at 1. On October 7, 2024, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, “find[ing] that the at-issue vaccine was most likely administered in Petitioner’s right arm, as alleged, and he is otherwise entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA.” 1 ECF No. 21, at 1.

I. Items of Compensation

A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 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 he incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,587.63. 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 decision and the Court’s judgment award the following 2: a lump sum payment of $46,587.63, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.

III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment

Lump sum to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, David Molter: $46,587.63.

Respectfully submitted, YAAKOV M. ROTH Acting Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division GABRIELLE M. FIELDING Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Emilie F. Williams EMILIE F. WILLIAMS Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 (202) 305-1124 [email protected] DATED: February 27, 2025

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. 1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s October 7, 2024, entitlement decision. 2 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, unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings and future pain and suffering.

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