Fairchild v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
13-487
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Petitioner David Fairchild (b. 1957) developed bilateral brachial plexus neuritis and partial diaphragm paralysis after a 2012 tetanus vaccination and sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
- Respondent conceded entitlement; the parties negotiated damages but disputed loss of future earnings.
- Fairchild worked as Director of Engineering and Reliability at Olin and expected to work until age 66.5 (end of 2023). He claimed inability to continue working and sought $720,204 in lost future wages.
- Competing expert reports were submitted on medical condition, vocational capacity, and life-care needs; the Special Master denied lost future earnings as speculative and did not stay proceedings pending Olin’s long-term disability determination.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration when Olin’s ongoing disability evaluation remained outstanding; the Special Master denied reconsideration and issued a damages decision. Fairchild sought review in the Court of Federal Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Special Master abused discretion by not staying proceedings to await employer’s long-term disability determination | Fairchild: Olin’s decision is directly relevant and potentially outcome-determinative; proceedings should be stayed to include that evidence | HHS: Record supported denial of lost future earnings; no stay required | Court: Failure to consider impending disability decision was an abuse of discretion; remanded and ordered Special Master to consider the employer’s decision (stay/remand) |
| Whether petitioner proved entitlement to lost future earnings | Fairchild: Vaccine injury has rendered him unable to continue working, so he is entitled to $720,204 | HHS: Evidence shows Fairchild can continue working to retirement; lost earnings are speculative | Court: Did not resolve entitlement on merits; remanded for further factfinding including employer’s disability decision |
| Whether Special Master improperly increased petitioner’s burden on reconsideration | Fairchild: Special Master shifted burden of proof when denying reconsideration | HHS: Maintains original evaluation was appropriate | Held: Court remanded for further review; primary error was failing to consider disability decision rather than a standalone legal error on burden standard |
| Whether award for pain and suffering bars lost future earnings | Fairchild: Recovery for pain and suffering does not preclude separate lost-earnings award | HHS: Special Master reasoned pain-and-suffering award weighed against lost earnings | Court: Determination on that interaction insufficiently developed; remand required to reassess lost earnings in light of full record |
Key Cases Cited
- Munn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (standard of review: factual and discretionary rulings reviewed for arbitrary and capricious; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Doyle ex rel. Doyle v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 92 Fed. Cl. 1 (2010) (discussing review standards under the Vaccine Act)