welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. United States Court of Federal Claims
  4. 2016
  5. Neddeau v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-1092V. (2016)

Neddeau v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-1092V. (2016)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20160629e94 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 23, 2016
Latest Update: May 23, 2016
Summary: Not to be Published DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Special Master . On September 28, 2015, Loren Neddeau filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of receiving the influenza ("flu") vaccination on October 6, 2012. Thereafter, on January 14, 2016, Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report indicati
More

Not to be Published

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On September 28, 2015, Loren Neddeau filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of receiving the influenza ("flu") vaccination on October 6, 2012.

Thereafter, on January 14, 2016, Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report indicating that after reviewing the facts of this case, as reflected in the petition and accompany documents, the medical personnel of the Division of Injury Compensation Programs ("DICP"), Department of Health and Human Services determined that it was appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act. ECF No. 12. I subsequently issued an entitlement decision on January 14, 2016. ECF No. 13.

On May 20, 2016, Respondent filed a proffer proposing an award of compensation. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review I conclude that the Respondent's proffer (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.

The proffer awards:

• A lump sum payment of $300,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

This amount represent compensation for all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) to which Petitioner is entitled.

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $300,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.

II. Form of the Award

Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $300,000.00 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, 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/Gordon Shemin _________________ GORDON SHEMIN Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Phone: (202) 616-4208 Dated: May 20, 2016 Fax: (202) 353-2988

FootNotes


1. Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision's inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction "of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id.
2. The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) ("Vaccine Act" or "the Act"). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).
3. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
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.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
15-1092V.
Counsels
  • Stephen M. Reck
  • Gordon Elliot Shemin
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