Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Prazoff v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17-634 (2018)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: 17-634 Visitors: 1
Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey
Filed: Sep. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-0634V Filed: June 5, 2018 UNPUBLISHED MARK PRAZOFF, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Petitioner, Damages Decision Based on Proffer; v. Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine; AND HUMAN SERVICES, Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner. A
More
         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 17-0634V
                                      Filed: June 5, 2018
                                        UNPUBLISHED


    MARK PRAZOFF,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                        Petitioner,                          Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    v.                                                       Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
                                                             Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                                      Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine;
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                                      Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                             Administration (SIRVA)
                       Respondent.


Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On May 15, 2017, Mark Prazoff (“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”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of pneumococcal and tetanus vaccines he
received on April 5, 2016. Petition at preamble. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On February 2, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation. On June 5, 2018, respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $52,206.94. Proffer at
1. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered

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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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).
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 $52,206.94, in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Mark Prazoff. 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
             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
                       OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

MARK PRAZOFF,                               )
                                            )
              Petitioner,                   )       No. 17-634V
                                            )       Chief Special Master
       v.                                   )       Nora Beth Dorsey
                                            )
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                         )
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                         )
                                            )
              Respondent.                   )
                                            )

         RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

       On May 15, 2017, Mark Prazoff (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation

(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,

42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. Respondent

conceded petitioner’s entitlement to compensation in his Rule 4(c) Report filed on

February 2, 2018. Based on Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, on that same day, the Chief

Special Master found petitioner entitled to compensation.

I.    Items of Compensation

       Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be

awarded $52,206.94, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner

would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.




                                            1
II.     Form of the Award

        Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be

made through a lump sum payment of $52,206.94, in the form of a check payable to

petitioner. 1 Petitioner agrees.

        Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this

case.

                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                              CHAD A. READLER
                                              Acting Assistant Attorney General

                                              C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
                                              Acting Director
                                              Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                              CATHARINE E. REEVES
                                              Deputy Director
                                              Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                              ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
                                              Assistant Director
                                              Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                               s/Althea Walker Davis
                                              ALTHEA WALKER DAVIS
                                              Senior Trial Counsel
                                              Torts Branch, Civil Division
                                              U.S. Department of Justice
                                              P.O. Box 146
                                              Benjamin Franklin Station
                                              Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
                                              Tel: (202) 616-0515

DATED: 5 June 2018



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 pain and suffering, and future lost wages.

                                             2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer