Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Reaves v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17-1655 (2018)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: 17-1655 Visitors: 4
Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey
Filed: Oct. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1655V Filed: September 28, 2018 UNPUBLISHED KATIE REAVES, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Petitioner, Damages Decision Based on Proffer; v. Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH Administration (SIRVA) AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, f
More
         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1655V
                                   Filed: September 28, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED


    KATIE REAVES,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                        Petitioner,                          Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    v.                                                       Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
                                                             Injury Related to Vaccine
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                                      Administration (SIRVA)
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.


Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On November 2, 2017, Katie Reaves (“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 her receipt of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 5, 2016, caused her to suffer a left-sided shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1-2. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On September 21, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On September 28, 2018, respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded
$75,568.10. Proffer at 1. The award is comprised of $75,000.00 for pain and suffering
and $568.10 for past out-of-pocket medical expenses. 
Id. In the
Proffer, respondent

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).
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 $75,568.10, (comprised of $75,000 for pain and
suffering and $568.10 for past out-of-pocket expenses in the form of a check
payable to petitioner, Katie Reaves. 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.

                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Chief Special Master




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.


                                                      2
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

                               OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS


 KATIE REAVES,                 )
                               )
           Petitioner,         )
 v.                            )                     No. 17-1655V
                               )                     Chief Special Master Dorsey
 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )                     ECF
 SERVICES,                     )
                               )
           Respondent.         )
                               )

               RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I.        Items of Compensation

          On September 21, 2018, respondent conceded that entitlement to compensation was

appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. Chief Special Master Dorsey issued a Ruling on

Entitlement later that day, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her

left-sided shoulder injury. Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner

should be awarded $75,568.10. The award is comprised of $75,000.00 for pain and suffering

and $568.10 for past out of pocket medical expenses. This amount 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

          The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through

a lump sum payment of $75,568.10, 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,

                                                       JOSEPH H. HUNT
                                                       Assistant Attorney General

                                                       C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
                                                       Acting Director
                                                       Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                                       CATHARINE E. REEVES
                                                       Deputy Director
                                                       Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                                       ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
                                                       Assistant Director
                                                       Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                                       s/ Traci R. Patton
                                                       TRACI R. PATTON
                                                       Senior Trial Attorney
                                                       Torts Branch, Civil Division
                                                       U.S. Department of Justice
                                                       P.O. Box 146
                                                       Benjamin Franklin Station
                                                       Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
                                                       Telephone: (202) 353-1589

          Dated: September 28, 2018




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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.

Source:  CourtListener

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