Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

VanOSDOL v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 15-303V. (2015)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20150903928 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2015
Summary: DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 DENISE K. VOWELL , Chief Special Master . On March 25, 2015, Robert VanOsdol 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 he suffered brachial neuritis following administration of a Tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on April 13, 2012. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Uni
More

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On March 25, 2015, Robert VanOsdol 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 he suffered brachial neuritis following administration of a Tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on April 13, 2012. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 22, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for brachial neuritis. On July 30, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation ["Proffer"] indicating petitioner should be awarded $75,000.00. Proffer at 1.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump sum payment of $75,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Robert VanOsdol. 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

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Compensation for Vaccine Injury-Related Items

Respondent proffers that, based on the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded $75,000.00. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1); -15(a)(3)(A); and -15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

II. Form of the Award

The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made as a lump sum payment of $75,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.1 Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. This amount accounts for all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) to which petitioner would be entitled.

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 HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Senior Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division LARA A. ENGLUND Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 307-3013 Dated: July 30, 2015

FootNotes


1. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it 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), 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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 each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
1. Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief.
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