Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01012/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01012-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DAMAGES 

PAGE 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

VICTORIA L. BOESCH 

CHI SOO KIM 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2700 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

victoria.boesch@usdoj.gov 

chi.soo.kim@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for the United States 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

I. P., A MINOR, BY AND 

THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, 

FACUNDO PALACIO DIAZ; MICAELA 

PALACIO, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

 CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01012 JAM-CKD 

SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND 

ORDER REGARDING DAMAGES 

JUDGE: HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ 

CTRM.: 6, 14th Floor 

TRIAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 

Defendant the United States and Plaintiffs I.P. and Micaela Palacio respectfully submit the 

following further Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order regarding damages. The Court previously 

approved the parties’ first Joint Stipulation Regarding Damages. [Dkt 126] The parties have met and 

conferred to narrow the damages issues in order to streamline trial proceedings and conserve the parties’ 

and the Court’s time and resources. In the event of a liability finding following trial, the parties further 

stipulate to the following: 

A. Plaintiffs and the United States have each submitted life care plans for Plaintiff I.P.’s future 

care. Plaintiffs submitted the life care plan from its expert, Karen Preston. Plaintiffs’ life 

care plan is comprised of the last 7 pages of Exhibit 16, titled “Life Care Plan Tables.” The 

United States submitted the life care plan from its expert, Tim Sells. Defendant’s life care 

plan is Exhibit 247. 

Case 2:13-cv-01012-JAM-CKD Document 131 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 4
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DAMAGES 

PAGE 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

B. The life care plans of Plaintiffs and the United States both identify specific items of care, the 

costs for each item of care, and the frequency and/or quantity for each item of care for 

Plaintiff I.P. 

C. Attendant care is one component of the parties’ life care plans. Both parties’ life care plans 

provide for 24-hour attendant care. The difference is between the type of attendant care and 

the quantity of Case Manager hours. 

1) Plaintiffs’ life care plan provides for 24-hour agency Licensed Vocational Nurse 

(“LVN”) attendant care and 24 hours per year of Case Manager time. Exh. 16 at p.2 

(“Case Manager” entry in table titled “Future Ancillary Care & Periodic 

Evaluations”) and p.11, for “Home/ Facility Care.” 

2) The United States’ life care plan provides two proposals for attendant care: (a) 24-

hour private hire Home Health Attendant (“HHA”) care, two weeks of 24-hour 

agency LVN care to account for time off for the HHA, 48 hours per year of Case 

Manager time, annual Payroll Services, and 100 hours for the first year of 

Conservator-Fiduciary time (and 60 hours per year thereafter); (b) 18-hour private 

hire LVN care, 6-hour private hire HHA, two weeks of 24-hour agency LVN care to 

account for time off of the private hire LVN or HHA, 48 hours per year of Case 

Manager time, annual Payroll Services, and 100 hours for the first year of 

Conservator-Fiduciary time (and 60 hours per year thereafter). Exh. 247 at p18. 

D. The United States designated and disclosed an insurance expert, Paul Adams. The United 

States life care plan takes into consideration insurance for the costs for certain items of care, 

as provided by Mr. Adams. Plaintiffs’ life care plan (Preston) did not take insurance into 

account. Plaintiffs agree that the United States is entitled to an offset for insurance. 

E. Except for attendant care, Plaintiffs accept all the items of care and costs as presented in the 

United States’ life care plan (Sells), which includes costs that have taken insurance into 

account. Plaintiffs also accept the United States’ life care plan (Sells) recommendation for 

48 hours per year of Case Manager time and 100 hours for the first year of ConservatorFiduciary time (and 60 hours per year thereafter). Therefore, insurance-related issues are no 

longer in dispute and the United States will not present testimony at trial from its insurance 

expert, Mr. Adams. 

F. Plaintiffs and the United States have each disclosed and designated one life expectancy 

expert for trial. Plaintiffs’ life expectancy expert, Dr. Ira Lott, submits a life expectancy 

opinion for Plaintiff I.P. to age 28. The United States’ life expectancy expert, Steven Day, 

submits a life expectancy opinion for Plaintiff I.P. to age 20-24. 

G. Plaintiffs and the United States have each disclosed and designated an economist who has 

submitted damages calculations for the present cash value for Plaintiff I.P.’s future medical 

expenses using the parties’ respective life care plans and life expectancy opinions. Plaintiffs’ 

economist, Peter Formuzis, has submitted damages calculations for the present cash value for 

Plaintiff I.P.’s future medical expenses using Ms. Preston’s life care plan and Dr. Lott’s life 

expectancy opinion and a calculation using a 20 year additional life expectancy (to age 23). 

The United States’ economist, Erik Volk, has submitted damages calculations for the present 

Case 2:13-cv-01012-JAM-CKD Document 131 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 4
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DAMAGES 

PAGE 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

cash value for Plaintiff I.P.’s future medical expenses using Mr. Sell’s life care plan and Dr. 

Day’s life expectancy opinion. Mr. Volk also included the cost of insurance premiums and 

out-of-pocket costs so that Plaintiff I.P. could purchase insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs 

in the event that she lost her current health insurance for some reason 

H. As part of the stipulation, the parties agreed to include in Plaintiff I.P.’s agreed-upon future 

medical expenses, the cost of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs so that she could 

purchase insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs in the event that she lost her current health 

insurance for some reason. 

I. Because Plaintiffs accept all the items of care and costs as presented in the United States’ life 

care plan (Sells) except for attendant care, the parties have reached agreement on the present 

cash value amount for all of I.P.’s future medical expenses except for attendant care as 

follows: 

1) If the Court determines that Plaintiff I.P. has a life expectancy to age 23, and the 

Court applies the net discount rate offered by the United States’ economist Erik Volk, 

the present cash value for I.P.’s future medical expenses for all items except for home 

attendant care would be $517,882. 

2) If the Court determines that Plaintiff I.P. has a life expectancy to age 23, and the 

Court applies the net discount rate offered by Plaintiffs’ economist Peter Formuzis, 

the present cash value for I.P.’s future medical expenses for all items except for home 

attendant care would be $544,139. 

3) If the Court determines that Plaintiff I.P. has a life expectancy to age 28, and the 

Court applies the net discount rate offered by the United States’ economist Erik Volk, 

the present cash value for I.P.’s future medical expenses for all items except for home 

attendant care would be $635,815. 

4) If the Court determines that Plaintiff I.P. has a life expectancy to age 28, and the 

Court applies the net discount rate offered by Plaintiffs’ economist Peter Formuzis, 

the present cash value for I.P.’s future medical expenses for all items except for home 

attendant care would be $676,471. 

J. If the Court determines that Plaintiff I.P. has a life expectancy to an age other than to age 23 

or to age 28, the parties will need to submit to the Court revised damages figures based on 

the Court’s life expectancy finding and respectfully request the opportunity to do so. 

K. The remaining damages issues to be tried at trial are the following: 

1) Plaintiff I.P.’s life expectancy; 

2) What type of attendant care Plaintiff I.P. needs; 

3) The present cash value for this future attendant care; 

4) The amount of Plaintiff I.P.’s projected lost earnings; and 

5) The net discount rate(s) to apply. 

Case 2:13-cv-01012-JAM-CKD Document 131 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 4
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DAMAGES 

PAGE 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

L. The parties will present testimony at trial on these remaining damages issues from the 

following experts: Dr. Luis Montes (Plaintiffs’ medical expert), Ms. Karen Preston 

(Plaintiffs’ life care planner), Dr. Peter Formuzis (Plaintiffs’ economist), Dr. Ira Lott 

(Plaintiffs’ life expectancy expert), Dr. Joseph Capell (Defendant’s medical expert), Mr. Tim 

Sells (Defendant’s life care planner), Mr. Erik Volk (Defendant’s economist), and Dr. Steven 

Day (Defendant’s life expectancy expert). 

M. In the event of a liability finding and imposition of judgment against the United States, the 

United States will not request that the Court impose a reversionary trust that pays medical 

expenses only as they are incurred in structuring the damages payment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

Dated: September 29, 2015 By: /s/ Victoria L. Boesch 

VICTORIA L. BOESCH 

Assistant United States Attorney 

/s/ Chi Soo Kim 

CHI SOO KIM 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendant United States of America 

 LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE G. FAGEL & ASSOCIATES 

Dated: September 29, 2015 By: /s/ Bruce G. Fagel 

 BRUCE G. FAGEL 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 29, 2015 

 _/s/ John A. Mendez _________________ 

 HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-01012-JAM-CKD Document 131 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 4