Afzali v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 11-390V
    Filed: March 7, 2014
    (Not to be Published)
    ****************************
    N.A., a minor, by his Father        *
    and Natural Guardian, WALLI AFZALI, *                       Damages Decision Based on
    *                       Proffer; Measles, Mumps, Rubella
    Petitioner,    *                       Vaccine; MMR; Encephalitis;
    v.                                  *                       Table Injury.
    *
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                 *
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                 *
    *
    Respondent.    *
    ****************************
    Clifford J. Shoemaker, Esq., Shoemaker and Associates, Vienna, VA, for petitioner.
    Jennifer L. Reynaud, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
    Vowell, Chief Special Master:
    On June 14, 2011, Walli Afzali 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”] alleging that his son, NA, suffered encephalitis within five to
    fifteen days of receiving the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and that the vaccine was
    the cause of NA’s injury. Petition at Preamble.
    On December 10, 2012, respondent filed a report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c)
    in which she conceded that petitioner established the requirements for compensation
    1
    Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
    to post this decision 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), a party has 14 days to identify and
    move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B).
    Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted
    decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I
    will delete 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 (2006).
    under the Vaccine Act. Respondent’s Report at 4. Thereafter, on January 2, 2013, I
    issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation based on a
    Vaccine Table injury. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(III)(B). On the same day, I issued an
    order regarding damages.
    On March 6, 2014, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation
    [“Proffer”], which indicated that the petitioner agreed to the compensation amount.
    Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award the following:
    A. A lump sum payment of $1,153,833.20, representing compensation for lost
    future earnings ($645,427.52), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and life care
    expenses for Year One ($258,405.68), in the form of a check payable to
    petitioner as guardian/conservator of N.A., for the benefit of N.A., and
    subject to the terms of the attached Proffer; and
    B. A lump sum payment of $187,773.89, representing compensation for
    satisfaction of the State of Illinois Medicaid lien, payable jointly to
    petitioner and:
    Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
    Bureau of Collections
    Technical Recovery Section
    401 S. Clinton, 5th Floor
    Chicago, Illinois 60607-3800
    Attn: Mr. Anthony Graham
    Case No: 96-204-0000CS9504
    Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to the State of Illinois.
    C. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in
    section II.C. of the attached Proffer.
    The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
    decision.3
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    s/Denise K. Vowell
    Denise K. Vowell
    Chief Special Master
    3
    Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
    renouncing the right to seek review.
    2
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    N.A., a minor by his
    Father and Natural Guardian,
    WALLI AFZALI,
    Petitioners,                              No. 11-390V
    Chief Special Master Vowell
    v.                                                        ECF
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,
    Respondent.
    RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
    I.      Items of Compensation
    A.      Life Care Items
    The respondent engaged life care planner, Ginger Walton, RN, MSN, FNP, CNCLP, and
    petitioner engaged Tresa Johnson, RN, BSN, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of N.A.’s future
    vaccine injury-related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine injury” is as
    described in the Chief Special Master’s ruling on entitlement filed January 2, 2013. All items of
    compensation identified in the joint life care plan are supported by the evidence, and are
    illustrated by the chart entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for N.A., attached hereto as
    Tab A. 1 Respondent proffers that N.A. should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in
    the joint life care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab A. Petitioner agrees.
    1
    The chart at Tab A illustrates the annual benefits provided by the joint life care plan. The
    annual benefit years run from the date of judgment up to the first anniversary of the date of judgment, and
    every year thereafter up to the anniversary of the date of judgment.
    -1-
    B.     Lost Future Earnings
    The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, N.A. will not be gainfully
    employed in the future. Therefore, respondent proffers that N.A. should be awarded lost future
    earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(B). Respondent
    proffers that the appropriate award for N.A’s lost future earnings is $645,427.52. Petitioner
    agrees.
    C.     Pain and Suffering
    On February 3, 2014, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Damages for Pain and
    Suffering, finding that N.A. is entitled to the statutory cap of $250,000.00 in actual and projected
    pain and suffering.
    D.     Past Unreimbursable Expenses
    Petitioner has not provided evidence of any expenditures of past unreimbursable
    expenses related to N.A.’s vaccine-injury. Respondent therefore proffers that petitioner should
    be awarded no past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner agrees.
    E.     Medicaid Lien
    Respondent proffers that N.A. should be awarded funds to satisfy a State of Illinois
    Medicaid lien in the amount of $187,773.89, which represents full satisfaction of any right of
    subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of Illinois may have against any
    individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of Illinois has made to or on behalf of
    N.A. from the date of his eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a
    result of his vaccine-injury suffered on or about June 19, 2008, under Title XIX of the Social
    Security Act.
    -2-
    II.    Form of the Award
    The parties recommend that the compensation provided to N.A. should be made through
    a combination of lump sum payments and future annuity payments as described below, and
    request that the Court’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:
    A.      A lump sum payment of $1,153,833.20, representing compensation for lost future
    earnings ($645,427.52), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and life care expenses for Year One
    ($258,405.68), in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of N.A., for
    the benefit of N.A. No payments shall be made until petitioner provides respondent with
    documentation establishing that he has been appointed as the guardian/ conservator of N.A.’s
    estate. If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as
    guardian/conservator of the estate of N.A., any such payment shall be made to the party or
    parties appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/conservator of the
    estate of N.A. upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.
    B.      A lump sum payment of $187,773.89, representing compensation for satisfaction
    of the State of Illinois Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and:
    Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
    Bureau of Collections
    Technical Recovery Section
    401 S. Clinton, 5th Floor
    Chicago, Illinois 60607-3800
    Attn: Mr. Anthony Graham
    Case No: 96-204-0000CS9504
    Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to the State of Illinois.
    -3-
    C. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract, 2 subject to the conditions
    described below, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the joint life care
    plan, as illustrated by the chart at Tab A attached hereto, paid to the life insurance company 3
    from which the annuity will be purchased. 4 Compensation for Year Two (beginning on the first
    anniversary of the date of judgment) and all subsequent years shall be provided through
    respondent's purchase of an annuity, which annuity shall make payments directly to petitioner (or
    any other party who is appointed) as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of N.A., only so
    long as N.A. is alive at the time a particular payment is due. At the Secretary’s sole discretion,
    the periodic payments may be provided to petitioner in monthly, quarterly, annual or other
    installments. The “annual amounts” set forth in the chart at Tab A describe only the total yearly
    sum to be paid to petitioner and do not require that the payment be made in one annual
    installment.
    2
    In respondent’s discretion, respondent may purchase one or more annuity contracts from one or
    more life insurance companies.
    3
    The Life Insurance Company must have a minimum of $250,000,000 capital and surplus, exclusive
    of any mandatory security valuation reserve. The Life Insurance Company must have one of the
    following ratings from two of the following rating organizations:
    a. A.M. Best Company: A++, A+, A+g, A+p, A+r, or A+s;
    b. Moody's Investor Service Claims Paying Rating: Aa3, Aa2, Aa1, or Aaa;
    c. Standard and Poor's Corporation Insurer Claims-Paying Ability Rating: AA-, AA,
    AA+, or AAA;
    d. Fitch Credit Rating Company, Insurance Company Claims Paying Ability Rating:
    AA-, AA, AA+, or AAA.
    -4-
    1.       Growth Rate
    Respondent proffers that a four percent (4%) growth rate should be applied to all non-
    medical life care items, and a five percent (5%) growth rate should be applied to all medical life
    care items. Thus, the benefits illustrated in the chart at Tab A that are to be paid through annuity
    payments should grow as follows: four percent (4%) compounded annually from the date of
    judgment for non-medical items, and five percent (5%) compounded annually from the date of
    judgment for medical items. Petitioner agrees.
    2.       Life-Contingent Annuity
    Petitioner will continue to receive the annuity payments from the Life Insurance
    Company only so long as N.A. is alive at the time that a particular payment is due. Written
    notice shall be provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Life Insurance
    Company within twenty (20) days of N.A.’s death.
    3.       Guardianship
    No payments shall be made until petitioner provides respondent with documentation
    establishing that he has been appointed as the guardian/conservator of N.A.’s estate. If petitioner
    is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/ conservator of the
    estate of N.A., any such payment shall be made to the party or parties appointed by a court of
    competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/conservator of the estate of N.A. upon submission of
    written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.
    4
    Petitioner authorizes the disclosure of certain documents filed by the petitioner in this case
    consistent with the Privacy Act and the routine uses described in the National Vaccine Injury
    Compensation Program System of Records, No. 09-15-0056.
    -5-
    III.    Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
    A.   Lump sum paid to petitioner as court-appointed
    guardian/conservator of N.A.’s estate:                            $1,153,833.20
    B.   Medicaid Lien:                                                    $ 187,773.89
    C.   An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described
    above in section II. C.
    Respectfully submitted,
    STUART F. DELERY
    Acting Assistant Attorney General
    RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
    Director
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
    Deputy Director
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
    Assistant Director
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    /s Jennifer L. Reynaud
    JENNIFER L. REYNAUD
    Trial Attorney
    Torts Branch, Civil Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    P.O. Box 146
    Benjamin Franklin Station
    Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
    Telephone: (202) 305-1586
    Date:
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-390

Judges: Denise Kathryn Vowell

Filed Date: 9/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/16/2015