Lopes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Lopes
Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
46%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-0170V FRANK LOPES, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 8, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nicole Anne Caplan-Mason, Law Office of Sylvia Chin-Caplan, LLC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On February 2, 2024, Frank Lopes 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a caused-in-fact or significant aggravation injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on March 1, 2021. Petition at 1 ¶¶ 4, 23, 27. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On October 22, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On May 5, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $57,517.62, 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). representing $57,500.00 for pain and suffering and $17.62 for past unreimbursable expenses.3 Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $57,517.62, representing $57,500.00 for pain and suffering and $17.62 for actual unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 As dictated by the Vaccine Act, this amount does not include compensation “for any item or service to the extent that payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made, with respect to such item or service . . . under an insurance policy.” Section 15(g). The Vaccine Act always and by its own terms functions as a secondary payer to a petitioner’s health care insurance. Any entitlement award paid to a petitioner cannot include amounts paid or expected to be paid under his or her existing health care insurance policy. The Act also prohibits any health insurance policy from “mak[ing] payment of benefits under the policy secondary to the payment of compensation under the Program.” Section 15(h). Because Petitioner’s medical insurance carrier has asserted a right of subrogation on several occasions, despite being provided with a copy of the General Order Regarding Subrogation, explaining the Vaccine Act’s role as a secondary payer, which can be found at the Court’s website, I am including this additional language to clarify that the compensation being awarded in this Damages Decision is for Petitioner’s out- of-pocket expenses only, and not for any amounts that are covered by her medical insurance policy. See https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program (last visited o
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Lopes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Date: June 9, 2025
Citation: Unknown
Jurisdiction: Federal (FS)
In the case of Lopes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Frank Lopes filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Act), alleging a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination received on March 1, 2021. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Key Legal Issues
- Eligibility for Compensation: Determining if Lopes suffered a vaccine-related injury as defined by the Vaccine Act.
- Nature of Injury: Establishing whether Lopes's injury qualifies as a Table injury or a significant aggravation injury.
Court's Decision
On October 22, 2024, the Chief Special Master ruled in favor of Lopes, finding him entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. On May 5, 2025, the Respondent submitted a proffer recommending a total award of $57,517.62, which includes:
- $57,500.00 for pain and suffering
- $17.62 for past unreimbursable expenses
The Chief Special Master accepted the proffer, awarding Lopes the total amount as compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act.
Legal Reasoning
The decision was based on the following considerations:
- The Vaccine Act provides a framework for compensating individuals injured by vaccines, establishing a no-fault system.
- The Special Master found sufficient evidence to support Lopes's claim of SIRVA, as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table.
- The Respondent's proffer was accepted, indicating that both parties agreed on the compensation amount, simplifying the resolution process.
Key Holdings
- Entitlement to Compensation: Lopes was found entitled to compensation due to a vaccine-related injury.
- Compensation Amount: The total compensation awarded was $57,517.62, covering pain, suffering, and unreimbursed expenses.
Precedents and Citations
- National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986: This Act serves as the legal foundation for vaccine injury claims.
- 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a): Outlines the elements of compensation available under the Vaccine Act.
Practical Implications
- This case reinforces the importance of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a resource for individuals suffering from vaccine-related injuries.
- The ruling illustrates the efficiency of the claims process when both parties agree on the terms of compensation, promoting quicker resolutions for injured parties.
- Legal practitioners should note the significance of documenting injuries related to vaccine administration to support claims effectively.
Overall, Lopes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services highlights the procedural and substantive aspects of vaccine injury claims, emphasizing the role of the Vaccine Act in providing relief to affected individuals.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools