Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rosenthal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17-693V. (2018)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20180614879 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2018
Summary: UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On May 24, 2017, 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccine he received on September 29, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Maste
More

UNPUBLISHED

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On May 24, 2017, 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccine he received on September 29, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 16, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration ("SIRVA"). On March 26, 2018, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation ("Proffer") indicating petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00. 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 $60,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Todd Rosenthal. 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. Compensation for Vaccine Injury-Related Items

On February 16, 2018, respondent concededed that entitlement to compensation was appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. Thereafter, on February 16, 2018, Chief Special Master Dorsey issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for his Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration ("SIRVA"). Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00. This amount 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 compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.

Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.

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 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