Hughes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-546V Filed: October 7, 2016 UNPUBLISHED

**************************** SANDRA R. HUGHES, * * Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer; v. * Pneumococcal 13-Valent Conjugate; * (“PCV” or “Prevnar 13”) Vaccination; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Hematoma, Cellulitis, Abscess; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) * Respondent. * * **************************** Milton Clay Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioner. Lisa Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On May 4, 2016, Sandra R. Hughes (“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 she suffered cellulitis, a hematoma, and an abscess resulting from the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination she received on November 21, 2014. Petition at 1, 2, 7, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 7, 2016, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for her cellulitis, hematoma, and abscess resulting from the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination she received on November 21, 2014. Respondent included a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”) in her Rule 4(c) Report filed on October 6, 2016, indicating petitioner should be awarded $125,017.82. (ECF No. 16).

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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.

2National 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). In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. 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 Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $125,017.82 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Sandra R. Hughes. 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