VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00541
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00541
Petitioner: Winifred Campbell
Filed: 2015-05-27
Decided: 2017-12-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-10-23
Condition: adhesive capsulitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 151969

AI-assisted case summary:
Winifred Campbell filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccination on October 23, 2013, caused her to suffer adhesive capsulitis. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The respondent conceded that the petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and that she met the statutory requirements for compensation, having suffered the condition for more than six months. A ruling on entitlement was issued on September 10, 2015, finding her entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on December 9, 2016, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, proposing an award of $151,969.93, which the petitioner agreed to. A decision awarding damages was issued on April 10, 2017, granting the lump sum payment of $151,969.93. Later, on December 14, 2017, a decision was issued regarding attorneys' fees and costs, awarding $26,231.44, to be paid jointly to the petitioner and her counsel.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00541-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-10-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/10/2015) regarding 16 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 19 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-541V
Filed: September 10, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WINIFRED CAMPBELL, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus & Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for petitioner.
Heather Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On May 27, 2015, Winifred Campbell filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza [“flu”]
vaccination on October 23, 2013, she suffered adhesive capsulitis. Petition at 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 9, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she
concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report at 1, 4. Specifically, respondent indicates that she “believes that petitioner’s
alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(‘SIRVA’)” and that “petitioner met the statutory requirements by suffering the condition
for more than six months.” Id. at 4.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to
post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501
note (2006)). 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 19 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00541-1
Date issued/filed: 2017-04-10
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/09/2016) regarding 39 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 44 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-541V
Filed: December 9, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WINIFRED CAMPBELL, *
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
v. * Influenza;
* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus & Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On May 27, 2015, petitioner 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 as a result of an influenza [“flu”] vaccination on October 23,
2013, she suffered adhesive capsulitis. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 10, 2015, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On December 9, 2016, respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded
$151,969.93. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees
with the proffered award. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that
petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 44 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $151,969.93 in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Winifred Campbell. This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 44 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
__________________________________________
)
WINIFRED CAMPBELL, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 15-541V (ECF)
v. ) Chief Special Master Dorsey
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Compensation for Vaccine Injury-Related Items
On September 10, 2015, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that
petitioner is entitled to vaccine compensation for her Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”). Respondent proffers that based on the evidence of record, petitioner
should be awarded $151,969.93. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which
petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1); 15(a)(3)(A); and 15(a)(4).
Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below, and request that the Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:1
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 44 Filed 04/10/17 Page 4 of 4
A lump sum payment of $151,969.93, in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
Winifred Campbell. This amount accounts for all elements of compensation
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) to which petitioner would be entitled.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Acting Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LINDA S. RENZI
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Voris E. Johnson, Jr.
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 146
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel.: (202) 616-4136
DATE: December 9, 2016
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00541-2
Date issued/filed: 2017-12-14
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/16/2017) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 49 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0541V
Filed: May 16, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WINIFRED CAMPBELL, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus & Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On May 27, 2015, petitioner 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 alleged that she suffered adhesive capsulitis as a result of her October
23, 2013 influenza vaccination. On December 9, 2016, the undersigned issued a
decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No.
39). Petitioner now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 49 Filed 12/14/17 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History
On April 4, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No.
43). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $30,574.24, of which
$691.24 represents attorney costs and the remaining $29,883.00 represents attorney
and paralegal fees.3 (ECF No. 43-3, p. 15.) On April 11, 2017, respondent filed a
response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 45).
In his response, respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine
Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in the resolution of a request by a
petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds,
however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends that
the Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for
attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3.
II. Authority to Award Reasonable Fees and Costs
Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(e)(1). Petitioner in this case was awarded compensation; she is therefore entitled to
an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a
court first determines “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying
the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly
rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the
court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee
award based on other specific findings. Id. at 1348.
III. Discussion
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request requires reductions of both the
hours and hourly rates that have been billed in this case.
3 This is the undersigned’s calculation. Counsel’s billing invoice does not include a separate total for
attorneys’ fees and no totals are given for the attorney and paralegal hours billed.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 49 Filed 12/14/17 Page 3 of 4
A. Reduction to a Reasonable Hourly Rate
In this case, Mr. Cinelli proposes an hourly rate of $300 per hour for all work
performed from 2014 through 2017. (See ECF No. 43-3.) Recently, however,
petitioner’s counsel moved for an award of attorneys’ fees in a contemporaneous case
at a lower hourly rate of $275 per hour for work performed from 2014 through 2016.
See Schupp v. Sec. Health & Human Servs.,15-1264V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 10,
2017). In Schupp, the undersigned found counsel’s prior rate to be reasonable in light
of his experience. Id.
The undersigned is not persuaded that a rate different from that awarded in
Schupp is warranted in this case or that petitioner’s request for a higher rate for
contemporaneous work is reasonable. Accordingly, the undersigned awards counsel
attorneys’ fees in this case, consistent with Schupp, at a rate of $275 per hour for work
performed from 2014 through 2016.4 However, in light of his increasing experience in
the Vaccine Program, the undersigned allows counsel’s requested rate of $300 per hour
as reasonable for work performed in 2017.
Upon the undersigned’s tabulation, Mr. Cinelli billed a total of 70.4 hours from
2014 through 2016, amounting to $21,120.00 at the requested rate of $300 per hour.
(ECF No. 43-3.) Reducing the hourly rate to $275 results in a reduction of $1,760.00.
B. Reduction to a Reasonable Number of Hours
Upon review of the billing records, the undersigned notes that counsel billed 26
hours of attorney time to review the initially filed medical records and draft the petition in
this case. (ECF No. 43-3.) An additional 20 hours of paralegal time was billed for
review of the records and preparation of a chronology. (Id.) However, less than 100
pages of medical records were filed in this case prior to the undersigned’s finding of
entitlement. (See ECF Nos. 6, 11.) Subsequently, less than 70 pages of additional
updated medical records were filed in this case. (See ECF Nos. 27, 33.) Counsel billed
7.6 hours of attorney time and 13.4 hours of paralegal time for the review of these later-
filed records. (ECF No. 43-3.)
In the undersigned’s experience adjudicating similar types of SIRVA (shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration) claims and reviewing the associated billing
records of such SIRVA claims, the hours billed in this case are significantly higher and
appear excessive. See, e.g. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (noting
that the court must exclude “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise
4 Nor would awarding an increased rate be appropriate if petitioner’s counsel had initially billed this case
at the lower rate as his prior Schupp application suggests may have been the case. See, e.g. Simmons
v. Sec’y Heath & Human Servs., No. 11-216V, 2016 WL 6156330 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 28,
2016)(finding that petitioner’s counsel could not apply an attorney rate increase retroactively for work
previously performed).
3

Case 1:15-vv-00541-UNJ Document 49 Filed 12/14/17 Page 4 of 4
unnecessary.”); Schupp, supra (finding similar hours by the same counsel to be
excessive). Therefore, the undersigned reduces the above-identified billing by 20%.
This results in a reduction of $2,582.80.5
IV. Conclusion
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
§ 15(e). The undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs as
follows:
Requested attorneys’ fees: $29,883.00
Less hourly rate reduction: -$1,760.00
Less reduction in hours: -$2,582.80
Adjusted total: $25,540.20
Costs: $691.24
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded: $26,231.44
Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $26,231.446 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,
Marcus & Cinelli, LLP.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
5 The undersigned reduces 33.6 hours of attorney time by 20%, resulting in a 6.72 hour reduction. At the
above-discussed rate of $275 per hour, that results in a deduction of $1,848.00. The undersigned
reduces 33.4 hours of paralegal time by 20%, resulting in a reduction of 6.68 hours. At a rate of $110 per
hour, that results in a deduction of $734.80. Thus, the total reduction is $2,582.80.
6 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would
be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
4