Graves ex rel. Estate of Graves v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health & Human Services
109 Fed. Cl. 579
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Hayley Graves died Sept. 24, 2000 at 10 months 20 days old from intractable seizures after Prevnar vaccination on Aug. 8, 2000; death certificate lists status epilepticus and intractable seizures as causes.
- Petitioners Walter and Lisa Graves seek Vaccine Act compensation for Hayley’s death and pain-and-suffering damages; they are entitled to $250,000 death benefit and unreimbursed expenses ($5,171.50) but dispute the pain-and-suffering amount.
- Special Master awarded $60,000 for pain and suffering under a continuum policy linking damages to a $250,000 cap; petitioners argue this policy misreads the statute and precedents.
- Court previously remanded to address Prevnar’s role and other causation issues; now reviews damages in light of statutory cap and case law.
- Court finds the continuum policy inconsistent with the statute and precedent, determines the pain-and-suffering award must be capped at $250,000, and awards a total of $505,171.50 (death benefit $250,000, expenses $5,171.50, pain-and-suffering $250,000).
- Prevnar-related evidence and related medical details are discussed to support the determination of Hayley’s suffering and its duration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Properly apply the $250,000 cap for pain and suffering | Graves: continuum policy misreads statute; cap should apply to total award when warranted by record. | HHS: policy consistent with precedent; cap relevance aligns with Youngblood approach. | Policy rejected; cap applies to the pain-and-suffering portion, with total award capped at $250,000 for that segment. |
| Order of applying cap and discount for future damages | Cap should function as a starting point, with subsequent present-value discount applied. | Cap first, then discount; Youngblood requires applying cap before discount. | Cap applied to the compensation amount before the discount; discount applied to determine lump-sum payment. |
| Court may set aside special master’s damages ruling and award damages directly | Court should rectify legal error and determine damages independently. | Respondent did not affirmatively oppose court review of damages. | Court granted review, set aside the special master’s damages ruling, and determined damages consistent with statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Youngblood v. Sec’y of HHS, 32 F.3d 552 (Fed.Cir.1994) (cap applied before discount to present value; cap as starting point for present value)
- McAllister v. Sec’y of HHS, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed.Cir.1995) (cap applied before discount for future pain and suffering)
- Althen v. Sec’y of HHS, 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed.Cir.2005) (court may review legal issues for Vaccine Act interpretations)
- Cloer v. Sec’y of HHS, 675 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2012) (en banc; expresses remedial, generous view of Vaccine Act compensation)