VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01437 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01437 Petitioner: Kenneth Lauria Filed: 2019-09-18 Decided: 2024-07-22 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2016-09-26 Condition: brachial neuritis Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 75000 AI-assisted case summary: On September 18, 2019, Kenneth Lauria filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on September 26, 2016 caused brachial neuritis. Respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated Mr. Lauria's alleged vaccine-induced brachial neuritis, any other injury, or his current condition. The public stipulation decision does not describe the onset of pain or weakness, neurologic testing, treatment, recovery, expert opinions, or the biological mechanism proposed. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen adopted the parties' stipulation on July 22, 2024. Mr. Lauria received $75,000.00 as a lump sum payable to him for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. The case therefore resolved as a compensation award while leaving the disputed medical-causation issues undecided in the public record. A later August 18, 2025 decision addressed attorneys' fees and costs only. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine September 26, 2016; alleged brachial neuritis. COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied causation/significant aggravation and sequelae; public merits text lacks clinical details. Award $75,000.00 lump sum. SM Gowen July 22, 2024. Petition filed September 18, 2019. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01437-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-12 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/22/2024) regarding 88 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: July 22, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * KENNETH LAURIA, * * Petitioner, * No. 19-1437V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, New York, NY, for petitioner. Camille M. Collett, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On September 18, 2019, Kenneth Lauria (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 26, 2016, he suffered from brachial neuritis. Id. On July 22, 2024, respondent filed a stipulation stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (“Stip.”) (ECF No. 87). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged-induced brachial neuritis or any other injury. Stip. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their positions, the parties nevertheless agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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 files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. 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-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 7 awarding compensation according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. The stipulation provides: 1) A lump sum of $75,000.00 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). I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expediated by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2 Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-01437-UNJ Document 92 Filed 08/12/24 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01437-cl-extra-10734550 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-12 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267960 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: July 22, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * ** * KENNETH LAURIA, * * Petitioner, * No. 19-1437V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, New York, NY, for petitioner. Camille M. Collett, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On September 18, 2019, Kenneth Lauria (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 26, 2016, he suffered from brachial neuritis. Id. On July 22, 2024, respondent filed a stipulation stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (“Stip.”) (ECF No. 87). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged-induced brachial neuritis or any other injury. Stip. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their positions, the parties nevertheless agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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 files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. 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-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. awarding compensation according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. The stipulation provides: 1) A lump sum of $75,000.00 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). I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expediated by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01437-cl-extra-11228478 Date issued/filed: 2025-12-19 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10761893 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 18, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KENNETH LAURIA, * * Petitioner, * No. 19-1437V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Robert Joel Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner. Camille Michelle Collett, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On January 12, 2025, Kenneth Lauria, (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 93). For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and award a total of $88,854.05. I. Procedural History On September 18, 2019, Kenneth Lauria (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 26, 2016, he suffered from brachial neuritis. Id. On July 22, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF No. 88). 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 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine 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. On January 12, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Fees App. at 1. Petitioner requests compensation in the total amount of $88,854.05, representing $85,574.63 in attorneys’ fees and $3,279.42 in costs. Id. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner warrants he has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of his claim. See Fees App. Tab 8. Respondent reacted to the fees motion on January 22, 2025, stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2 (ECF No. 89). Petitioner filed a reply on January 22, 2025. Reply (ECF No. 95). The matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Analysis Under the Vaccine Act, the special master may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for a petition that does not result in an award of compensation but was filed in good faith and supported by a reasonable basis. § 300aa–15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioners “bea[r] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1993). Adequate proof of the claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is filed. Id. at 484 n. 1. The special master has the discretion to reduce awards sua sponte, independent of enumerated objections from the respondent. Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 208–09 (Fed. Cl. 2009); Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008), aff'd No. 99–537V, 2008 WL 2066611 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2008). a. Attorneys’ Fees A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of Petitioner's attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorneys’ fees to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules for 2015-2016 and from 2017-2022, which can be accessed online. 2 Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of their counsel, Mr. Robert Krakow: $464.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $484.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $509.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $525.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $553.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $584.00 per hour for work performed in 2024 and 2025. See Fees App., Tab 2. Additionally, Petitioner requests rates between $150.00 to $197.00 per hour for paralegal work performed from 2019-2025. See Fees App., Tab 7. These rates are consistent with what counsel and staff have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and I find them to be reasonable herein. Turning next to review of the submitted billing statement, I find that the overall hours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The entries are reasonable and accurately describe the work being performed and the length of time it took to perform each task. Respondent has not identified any particular entries as being objectionable. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees of $85,574.63. b. Attorneys’ Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests attorneys’ costs in the amount of $3,279.42. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, copies, the Court’s filing fee, and expert services provided by Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne totaling $2,000.00. See Fees App., Tabs 3-5. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting all of his requested costs and all expenses appear to be reasonable and necessary for the presentation of the case. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought. III. Conclusion In accordance with the foregoing, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and find that Petitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs as follows: Attorneys’ Fees Requested $85,574.63 (Reduction of Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $85,574.63 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $3,279.42 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $3,279.42 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $88,854.05 Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $88,854.05 representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 3 In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 4