Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

AKYUZ v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 15-201V. (2015)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20151007867 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2015
Summary: DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 DENISE K. VOWELL , Special Master . On March 2, 2015, Marilyn Akyuz 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"]. The petition alleges that as a result of a trivalent influenza ["flu"] vaccination on October 7, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ["SIRVA"]. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
More

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On March 2, 2015, Marilyn Akyuz 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"]. The petition alleges that as a result of a trivalent influenza ["flu"] vaccination on October 7, 2013, petitioner suffered 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 June 22, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On September 1, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation ["Proffer"] indicating that petitioner should be awarded compensation in the amount of $127,500.00. Proffer at 1.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump sum payment of $127,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Marilyn Akyuz. 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.

PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $127,500.00, 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

Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $127,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.

Respectfully submitted, BENJAMIN C. MIZER Prinicipal 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/ Sarah C. Duncan ________________________________ Sarah C. Duncan 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) 514-9729 Fax: (202) 616-4310

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 the 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