welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. United States Court of Federal Claims
  4. 2017
  5. Byrd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-1688V. (2017)

Byrd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-1688V. (2017)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20180516d68 Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On December 22, 2016, David Byrd ("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 received an influenza ("flu") vaccine on January 29, 2016, and thereafter suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special P
More

UNPUBLISHED

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On December 22, 2016, David Byrd ("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 received an influenza ("flu") vaccine on January 29, 2016, and thereafter suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On August 9, 2017, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On August 9, 2017, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on award of compensation ("Rule 4/Proffer") indicating petitioner should be awarded $95,000.00. Rule 4/Proffer at 1. In the Rule 4/Proffer, respondent represents 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 Rule 4/Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $95,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, David Byrd. 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.

FootNotes


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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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).
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.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
16-1688V.
Counsels
  • Jeffrey S. Pop
  • Ryan Daniel Pyles
Similar Cases

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