VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01428 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01428 Petitioner: Matthew Morales Filed: 2018-09-19 Decided: 2023-06-05 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2015-10-06 Condition: brachial neuritis, left acromioclavicular impingement syndrome, and bilateral physiological tremors Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 45000 AI-assisted case summary: Matthew Morales filed a petition on September 19, 2018, alleging that he suffered from brachial neuritis, left acromioclavicular impingement syndrome, and bilateral physiological tremors as a result of influenza vaccines received on October 6, 2015, and November 1, 2016. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccines caused Petitioner's alleged injuries or that his current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. The parties subsequently filed a stipulation recommending an award of compensation to Petitioner. Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Under the terms of the stipulation, Matthew Morales was awarded $45,000.00 as a lump sum payment, representing compensation for all damages available under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The decision was based on the stipulation, and judgment was to be entered accordingly. Petitioner was represented by Mark Theodore Sadaka of the Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, and Respondent was represented by Zoe Wade of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert testimony. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Matthew Morales alleged that influenza vaccines received on October 6, 2015, and November 1, 2016, caused brachial neuritis, left acromioclavicular impingement syndrome, and bilateral physiological tremors. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a stipulation for compensation, which was approved by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey on June 5, 2023. Petitioner was awarded $45,000.00 as a lump sum. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01428-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-06-30 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/5/2023) regarding 86 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 5, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MATTHEW MORALES, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 18-1428V * v. * Special Master Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision Based on Stipulation; Influenza AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Flu”) Vaccine; Brachial Neuritis; Left * Acromioclavicular Impingement Syndrome; Respondent. * Bilateral Physiological Tremors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for Petitioner. Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION BASED ON STIPULATION1 On September 19, 2018, Matthew Morales (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Program2 alleging that he suffered from brachial neuritis, left acromioclavicular impingement syndrome, and bilateral physiological tremors as a result of influenza (“flu”) vaccines he received on October 6, 2015 and November 1, 2016. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 1 Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 7 On June 5, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation recommending an award of compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 85). Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained the injuries alleged; denies that the flu vaccines caused Petitioner’s alleged injuries, or any other injury; and denies that his current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation: (1) A lump sum of $45,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Stipulation at ¶ 8. The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora B. Dorsey Nora B. Dorsey Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01428-UNJ Document 93 Filed 06/30/23 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01428-cl-extra-10736296 Date issued/filed: 2024-02-02 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269706 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (Filed: December 21, 2023) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MATTHEW MORALES, * UNPUBLISHED * No. 18-1428V Petitioner, * * Special Master Dorsey v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark T. Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner. Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On September 19, 2018, Matthew Morales (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that as a result of influenza vaccinations administered on October 6, 2015, and November 1, 2016, he suffered from brachial neuritis, left acromioclavicular impingement syndrome, and bilateral physiological tremors. On June 5, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF No. 86). 1 This Decision will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 44 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)B), however, the parties may object to the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical filed or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise the whole decision will be available to the public in its current form. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa. On June 21, 2023, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 90). Petitioner requests compensation in the amount of $60,159.30, representing $41,169.64 in attorneys’ fees and $18,989.66 in attorneys’ costs. Respondent filed his response on June 27, 2023, indicating that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2 (ECF No. 91). Petitioner filed a reply on June 27, 2023, reiterating his belief that the requested attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable. (ECF No. 92) The matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and awards a total of $60,159.30. I. Discussion Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. at §15(e)(1). In this case, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees 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. Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). 2 A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of a petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991) rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant part, 988 F. 2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests … [v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee application.” Saxton, 3 F. 3d at 1521. i. Reasonable Hourly Rates Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel, Mr. Mark Sadaka: $376.38 per hour for work performed in 2017, $396.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $405.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $422.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $444.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $458.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $482.00 per hour for work performed in 2023. These rates are consistent with what Mr. Sadaka has previously been awarded for his Vaccine Program work, and they undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein. ii. Reasonable Hours Expended In reducing an award of fees, the goal is to achieve rough justice, and therefore a special master may take into account their overall sense of a case and may use estimates when reducing an award. See Florence v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-255V, 2016 WL 6459592, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). It is well established that an application for fees and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time billed so that a special master may determine, from the application and the case file, whether the amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760 (1989); Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468. Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and costs claimed. Id. at *8. The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds the total number of hours billed to be reasonable. The billing entries accurately reflect the nature of the work performed and the undersigned does not find any of the entries to be objectionable. Respondent also has not indicated that he finds any of the entries to be objectionable either. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of $41,169.64. b. Attorneys’ Costs Petitioner requests a total of $18,989.66 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, the Court’s filing fee, work performed by petitioner’s medical experts, Dr. Anne Miller and Dr. Joseph Jeret. Fees App. Ex. 2. The undersigned has reviewed the requested costs and finds them to be reasonable and supported with appropriate documentation. Accordingly, the full amount of costs shall be awarded. 3 II. Conclusion Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable compensate petitioner and his counsel as follows: Attorneys’ Fees Requested $41,169.64 (Total Reduction from Billing Hours) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $41,169.64 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $18,989.66 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $18,989.66 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $60,159.30 Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $60,159.30, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Mark Sadaka. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey 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. 4