Heinzelman v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12000
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Heinzelman, born 1971, received a flu vaccine on December 10, 2003, and developed Guillain-Barré syndrome shortly after.
- Before injury, Heinzelman earned $49,888 annually as a full-time hairstylist; she will never work again and is eligible for approx. $20,000/year in SSDI.
- On January 3, 2007, Heinzelman filed a Vaccine Act compensation petition; the 2008 special master found causation and awarded compensation.
- In May 2010, a separate ruling held SSDI should not offset her Vaccine Act compensation for loss of earnings under § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A).
- On December 7, 2010, the special master entered final judgment for $1,133,046.08 plus a medical expense annuity; $900,000 allocated to lost earnings.
- The government petitioned for review; the Court of Federal Claims affirmed, and the government appeals to the Federal Circuit seeking SSDI offset.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSDI reduces lost earnings under § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). | Heinzelman: SSDI not deductible from lost earnings; SSDI is not an offset under § 15(a). | Heinzelman’s SSDI should reduce lost earnings because it substitutes for wages. | SSDI does not reduce lost earnings under § 15(a)(3)(A). |
| Whether SSDI is an offset under § 300aa-15(g). | SSDI is not a ‘Federal health benefits program’ offset; not enumerated in § 15(g). | SSDI could be treated as a health benefits program offset under § 15(g). | SSDI is not a Federal health benefits program; no offset under § 15(g). |
| Whether the Vaccine Act allows offsets via sovereign immunity if ambiguity remains. | Plain language resolves the issue; sovereign immunity unnecessary. | If ambiguous, sovereign immunity should limit the government’s liability. | Sovereign immunity does not control; statute unambiguous against offset for SSDI. |
Key Cases Cited
- Euken v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 34 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (tax adjustments acknowledged in lost earnings context)
- Saunders v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (structure of Vaccine Act and compensation purpose)
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1988) (statutory interpretation: give meaning to all parts)
- Sharp v. United States, 580 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (avoid rendering statutory text meaningless)
- Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. v. Quigg, 894 F.2d 392 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (textual interpretation of unambiguous statutes)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (intentionality in differing statutory language)
- Nordic Vill., Inc. v. United States, 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (sovereign immunity narrowly construed when no ambiguity)
- Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (U.S. 2008) (no need to resort to sovereign immunity where text clear)