Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rutschman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-925V. (2015)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20160509840 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2015
Summary: Unpublished DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On August 24, 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 her October 24, 2014 influenza ("flu") and pneumococcal conjugate ("PCV-13") vaccinations caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA"). Petition at 1. The ca
More

Unpublished

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On August 24, 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 her October 24, 2014 influenza ("flu") and pneumococcal conjugate ("PCV-13") vaccinations caused her to suffer 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 November 23, 2015, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On February 17, 2016, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation ["Proffer"] indicating petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00. 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 $90,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Judith Rutschman. 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.

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00, 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 $90,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.

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 LISA A. WATTS Senior Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division JULIA W. McINERNY Senior Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 DATED: February 17, 2016 (202) 353-3919

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.
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.
Source:  Leagle

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