VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01113 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01113 Petitioner: Alison Guthrie Filed: 2020-09-01 Decided: 2024-01-02 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-09 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Alison Guthrie filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from an influenza vaccination received on October 9, 2019. She filed her petition with the Court of Federal Claims on September 1, 2020. The respondent filed a report recommending against compensation, and the court ordered the petitioner to submit an expert report supporting her claim. However, after further investigation, Ms. Guthrie concluded she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. She subsequently filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition, acknowledging that such a dismissal would end her rights in the Vaccine Program. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that a covered vaccine actually caused the injury, requiring a medical theory, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. Because Ms. Guthrie's medical records did not support her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and she did not file an expert medical opinion, the Special Master granted her motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement. The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly. Theory of causation field: unclear Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01113-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-01-02 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/6/2023) regarding 50 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (sh). Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01113-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/02/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1113V Filed: December 6, 2023 UNPUBLISHED ALISON GUTHRIE, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION1 On September 1, 2020, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on October 9, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On January 9, 2023, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 37.) Following this report, the undersigned ordered petitioner to file an expert report supporting her claim. On December 6, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition. (ECF No. 49.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting her case have demonstrated to [p]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) Petitioner further stated that she “understands that a decision by the Special Master 1 Because this document 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 document 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. Case 1:20-vv-01113-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/02/24 Page 2 of 2 dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy her burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from ruling for petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. Petitioner’s medical records do not support her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and she did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of her allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. CONCLUSION This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01113-cl-extra-10747772 Date issued/filed: 2024-11-20 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10281184 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1113V Filed: October 25, 2024 ALISON GUTHRIE, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Lara A. Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On September 1, 2020, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (2012) (“Vaccine Act”).2 (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on October 9, 2019. (Id.) On December 6, 2023, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 50.) On March 9, 2024, petitioner filed a final motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 55.) Petitioner requests a total of $23,233.89 for attorneys’ fees and costs, including $19,533.20 for attorneys’ fees and $3,700.69 for costs. (Id. at 2.) On January 30, 2024, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 56.) Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 requires respondent to file a response to a request by petitioner for an award of 1 Because this document 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 document 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 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. 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 requests that the court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 3.) The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. (ECF No 55 (Exs. A-B).) In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. Additionally, the costs are reasonable and sufficiently documented. The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 300aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $23,233.893 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Paul R. Brazil, Esq. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel Horner Daniel Horner Special Master 3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter.This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, including “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 300aa-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). 4 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