Emerson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 15-557V
    Filed: January 15, 2016
    Unpublished
    ****************************
    JOHN EMERSON,                          *
    *
    Petitioner,         *      Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    *      Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
    *      Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                    *      Administration (“SIRVA”); Special
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                    *      Processing Unit (“SPU”)
    *
    Respondent.         *
    *
    ****************************
    Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, Boston, MA, for petitioner.
    Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
    Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
    On June 1, 2015, petitioner 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”]. Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza [“flu”] vaccination
    on October 11, 2013, he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
    [“SIRVA”]. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
    Office of Special Masters.
    On September 15, 2015, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
    entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On January 15, 2016, respondent filed a proffer on
    award of compensation [“Proffer”] indicating petitioner should be awarded $83,000.00.
    1
    Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
    undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, 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)). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
    within this definition, the undersigned 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
    300aa (2012).
    Proffer at 1. 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, the undersigned awards
    petitioner a lump sum payment of $83,000.00 in the form of a check payable to
    petitioner, John Emerson. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
    would be available under § 300aa-15(a).
    The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
    decision.3
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    s/Nora Beth Dorsey
    Nora Beth Dorsey
    Chief Special Master
    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.
    2
    Case 1:15-vv-00557-UNJ Document 23 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 2
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    ____________________________________
    )
    JOHN EMERSON,                        )
    )
    Petitioner,              )
    )   No. 15-557V
    v.                            )   Chief Special Master Dorsey
    )   ECF
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND             )
    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
    $83,000.00 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 $83,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
    Petitioner agrees.
    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 1:15-vv-00557-UNJ Document 23 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2
    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
    LINDA S. RENZI
    Senior Trial Counsel
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    s/Christine Mary Becer
    CHRISTINE MARY BECER
    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) 616-3665
    Date:    January 15, 2016
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-557

Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey

Filed Date: 5/4/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021