VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01501 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01501 Petitioner: Audrey Chinnock Filed: 2020-10-30 Decided: 2024-04-16 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-12-06 Condition: neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 175000 AI-assisted case summary: On October 30, 2020, Audrey Chinnock filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on December 6, 2017 caused neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. She alleged residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated Ms. Chinnock's alleged NMOSD or its residual effects, and denied that the vaccine caused any other injury or her current condition. The public stipulation decision does not describe the first neurologic symptoms, vision or spinal-cord findings, diagnostic testing, treatment, relapse history, or expert causation opinions. Special Master Daniel T. Horner adopted the parties' stipulation on April 16, 2024. Ms. Chinnock received $175,000.00 as a lump sum payable directly to her for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. A later July 29, 2025 decision addressed attorneys' fees and costs only. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine December 6, 2017; alleged neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied causation/significant aggravation and sequelae; public merits text lacks clinical and expert detail. Award $175,000.00 lump sum. SM Horner April 16, 2024. Petition filed October 30, 2020. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01501-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-05-14 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/16/2024) regarding 55 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1501V Filed: April 16, 2024 AUDREY CHINNOCK, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jared Rose, Rose Law, Kansas City, MO, for petitioner. Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On October 30, 2020, 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 she suffered neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (“NMOSD”), as a result of her December 6, 2017 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed April 16, 2024, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1, 3-4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged NMOSD or its residual effects[] and denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 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 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 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on April 16, 2024, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $175,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner 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 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 3 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) AUDREY CHINNOCK. ) ) Petitioner. ) ) No. 20-I 50 I V V. ) Special Master Homer ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES. ) ) ______R_esp_ond_en_t. _______ ) ) STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: l. Audrey Chinnod:. petitioner. filed a petition for\ accine compensation under the l\arional Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. ➔2 U.S.C. ~~ 300aa-IO to -3➔ (the ··\'ac(ine Program··). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner·s receipt of an influenza ('·flu") vaccine. which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the * --Table .. ). 42 C.F.R. I 00.J(a). " Petitioner received the flu vaccine on December 6.2017. 3. The vaccination was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that she suffered neuromeyelitis optica spectrum disorder (. . NMOSD .. ). and further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition. 6. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner"s Case 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 4 of 7 alleged NMOSD or its residual effects. and denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner an) other injury or her current condition. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions. the parties nevertheless now agree that th..: issues bet\\een them shall he settled and that a decision .should be entered awarding the L'nmpensntion described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable atter an entry ofj udgment reflecting a decision consistent" ith the terms of this Stipulation. and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation purswmt to ..Q U.S.C. ~ 300aa-2 I (a)( I). the Secretary of Health and I luman Services ,viii is:-uc 1h1.· lt1ll0\, ing vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of$ I 75.000.00 in the form ()f. a check payable 10 pl..'litioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that \\'Ould b..: ,1,ailable under 42 U.S.C. ~ 300aa-I 5(a). 9. ,~\s soon a::. practicable atkr rhe entr) oi'judgment 011 enritk111e111 in this c«se. and ;11'1..:r 1x'titioner has tiled both a proper and timely election to receive compcn~ation pursuant to -12 U .S.C. ~ .,00aa-21 (n )(I). and an application. the parties ,viii submit to further proceeding.s h\.'li,rt-: the spccinl mask'r to ~rnard reasonable att()rt11.'ys· fees and co~b incurred in procecdinµ upnn thi.s petition. I 0. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to chis Stipulation is not for any items or services for which rhe Program is nor primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. ~ 300aa-l 5(g). to the extent that payment has been mack l)r can reasonabl~ be ·r State health benefits programs (other than itle XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. ~ I .~. 96 et seq.)). or by entities that pro, ide he<1lth services on a pre-paid basis. "l Case 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 5 of 7 I I . Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- I S(i). subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that. except for any award for attorneys· fees and litigation costs. and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation ,viii be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9. petitioner. in her individual capacity. and on behalf of her heirs. executors. administrators. successors or assigns. does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release. acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements. judgments. claims. damages, loss of services. expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought. could have been brought. or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims. under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l O et seq .. on account of. or in any way growing out of. any and all known or unknown. suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from. or alleged to have resulted from. the flu vaccination administered on December 6.2017. as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about October 30. 2020. in the Lnited States Court of Federal Claims as petition \io. 20-150 IV. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment. this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. Case 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 6 of 7 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete confonnity ,,ith the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgrnent in conform it: \\ ith a decision thnt is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation. then the parties' S(.'tllement and this Stipulation shall be voidable al the sole discretion or either party. I 6. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liabilit) and darnages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine lnjur> ,.\ct 01· 1986. as amended. e,c1:.•p1 as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the pnrtks hereto to make any payment or to do nn: act or thing other than is herein expressly .-;tated .111d ck:arl: agreed IP. lhe parties further agre1.' and understand that th1.· ,n,ard described in this Stipulation may rdlect a 1:ompromise of the partie-:· respect ire position, as to liabilit: and,or ar111nm1 01· da111ages. and further. that a chang1.' in the nature of the injur: or condition or in th~· it1..'111s of compensation sought. is not grounds to rn0dit) or re, ise this ;I!.!rt'ement. 17. This Stipulation shall not he construed as an admission b) tll~ United Stares or th1..· Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu ,accine caused petitioner's alleged shoukkr injur: or any other injur). heirs. e:-;ecutors. administrators. successors. and/or assigns. END OF STIPUL.ATIO:\ I I I Case 1:20-vv-01501-UNJ Document 56 Filed 05/14/24 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: dM ~~~ ~OSE HEATHER L. PEARLMAN eLaw Deputy Director 919 West 4 7th Street Torts Branch Kansas City, MO 64 t 12 Civil Division Tel: (816) 221-4335 U.S. Department of Justice Email: jared@roselawkc.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SER~Vt::I~C~E S: s. Jeffrey ~~gned by Jeffrey UUUCV1> -5 ~ Beach Date: 2024.03.08 09:38:33 - --- -· --0s·o0' for CDR GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH EMILIE F. WILLIAMS Director, Division oflnjury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Tel: (202) 305-0124 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: Emilie.williams@usdoj.gov ~11 v-f tof Dared 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01501-cl-extra-10735329 Date issued/filed: 2024-05-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268739 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1501V Filed: April 16, 2024 AUDREY CHINNOCK, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jared Rose, Rose Law, Kansas City, MO, for petitioner. Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On October 30, 2020, 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 she suffered neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (“NMOSD”), as a result of her December 6, 2017 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed April 16, 2024, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1, 3-4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged NMOSD or its residual effects[] and denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 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 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). Nevertheless, on April 16, 2024, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $175,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) AUDREY CHINNOCK. ) ) Petitioner. ) ) No. 20- I 50 I V V. ) Special Master Homer ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES. ) ) Respondent. _________________ ) ) STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: l. Audrey Chinnod:. petitioner. filed a petition for\ accine compensation under the l\arional Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. ➔ 2 U.S.C. ~~ 300aa- IO to - 3 ➔ (the ··\'ac(ine Program··). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner·s receipt of an influenza ('·flu") vaccine. which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the --Table .. ). 42 C.F.R. *I00.J(a). " Petitioner received the flu vaccine on December 6.2017. 3. The vaccination was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that she suffered neuromeyelitis optica spectrum disorder (.. NMOSD.. ). and further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition. 6. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner"s alleged NMOSD or its residual effects. and denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner an) other injury or her current condition. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions. the parties nevertheless now agree that th..: issues bet\\een them shall he settled and that a decision .should be entered awarding the L'nmpensntion described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable atter an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent" ith the terms of this Stipulation. and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation purswmt to ..Q U.S.C. ~ 300aa-2 I (a)( I). the Secretary of Health and I luman Services ,viii is:-uc 1h1.· lt1ll0\, ing vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of$ I 75.000.00 in the form ()f. a check payable 10 pl..'litioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that \\'Ould b..: ,1,ailable under 42 U.S.C. ~ 300aa- I 5(a). 9. ,~\s soon a::. practicable atkr rhe entr) oi'judgment 011 enritk111e111 in this c«se. and ;11'1..:r 1x'titioner has tiled both a proper and timely election to receive compcn~ation pursuant to -12 U .S.C. ~ .,00aa-21 (n )(I). and an application. the parties ,viii submit to further proceeding.s h\.'li,rt-: the spccinl mask'r to ~rnard reasonable att()rt11.'ys· fees and co~b incurred in procecdinµ upnn thi.s petition. I 0. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to chis Stipulation is not for any items or services for which rhe Program is nor primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. ~ 300aa-l 5(g). to the extent that payment has been mack l)r can reasonabl~ be State health benefits programs (other than ·r itle XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. ~ I ..~96 et seq.)). or by entities that pro, ide he<1lth services on a pre-paid basis. "l I I . Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- I S(i). subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that. except for any award for attorneys· fees and litigation costs. and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation ,viii be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9. petitioner. in her individual capacity. and on behalf of her heirs. executors. administrators. successors or assigns. does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release. acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements. judgments. claims. damages, loss of services. expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought. could have been brought. or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims. under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- l Oet seq .. on account of. or in any way growing out of. any and all known or unknown. suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from. or alleged to have resulted from. the flu vaccination administered on December 6.2017. as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about October 30. 2020. in the Lnited States Court of Federal Clai ms as petition \io. 20-150 IV. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment. this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete confonnity ,,ith the term s of this Stipulation or i f the Court of Federa l Claims fails to enter judgrnent in conform it: \\ ith a decision thnt is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation. then the parties' S(.'tllement and this Stipulation shall be voidable al the sole discretion or either party. I 6. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of l iabi li t) and darnages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine lnjur> ,.\ct 01· 1986. as amended. e,c1:.•p1 as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the pnrtks hereto to make any payment or to do nn: act or thing other than is herein expressly .-;tated .111d ck:arl: agreed IP. lhe parties further agre1.' and understand that th1.· ,n, ard described in this Stipu lation may rdlect a 1:ompromise of the partie-:· respect ire position, as to l iabilit: and,or ar111nm1 01· da111ages. and further. that a chang1.' in the nature of the injur: or condition or in th~· it1..'111s of compensation sought. is not grounds to rn0dit) or re, ise this ;I!.!rt'ement. 17. This Stipulation shall not he construed as an admission b) tll~ United Stares or th1..· Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu ,accine caused petit ioner's alleged shoukkr injur: or any other injur). heirs. e:-;ecutors. administrators. successors. and/or assigns. END O F STIPUL.ATIO:\ I I I Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: dM ~~~ ~OSE HEATHER L. PEARLMAN eLaw Deputy Director 919 West 4 7th Street Torts Branch Kansas City, MO 64 t 12 Civil Division Tel: (816) 221-4335 U.S. Department of Justice Email: jared@roselawkc.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey s. ~t::~~ ~~gned by Jeffrey - Beach -5 - -- - · Date: 2024.03.08 09:38:33 --0s·o0' for CDR GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH ~ UUUCV1> EMILIE F. WILLIAMS Director, Division oflnjury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Tel: (202) 305-0124 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: Emilie.williams@usdoj.gov Dared ~11tofv-f 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01501-cl-extra-11167864 Date issued/filed: 2025-10-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10701277 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1501V Filed: July 29, 2025 AUDREY CHINNOCK, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jared Rose, Rose Law, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for petitioner. Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On October 30, 2020, Audrey Chinnock filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (“NMOSD”), as a result of her December 6, 2017 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. (ECF No. 1). On April 16, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF Nos. 53 and 55). On November 18, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 59) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests the following compensation: attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $76,179.03, representing $46,598.60 in fees and 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), Petitioners have 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). $29,585.43 in costs. Fees App. at 4-5. Petitioner warrants she did not personally incur any costs in pursuit of this claim. Id. at 4. On November 19, 2024, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 60). Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 requires respondent to file a response to 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 requests that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 5. Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. at 1347- 48. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348. It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however, should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 894-95. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id. Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte, without providing petitioners notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (Fed. Cl. 2009). When determining the relevant fee reduction, special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioners’ fee 2 application. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Instead, they may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (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 claimed in attorney fee requests . . . Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. a. Hourly Rates For attorneys receiving forum rates, the decision in McCulloch v. Secretary of Health & Human Services provides a further framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. No. 09- 293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules through 2025 can be accessed online.3 Mr. Rose, who is located in Kansas City, Missouri will be awarded forum rates in accordance with McCulloch and the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules. Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for her attorney, Mr. Jared Rose: $317.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $324.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $338.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $355.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $366.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $386.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $407.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. I find that these rates are reasonable for Mr. Rose’s experience and the work he performed in this case; therefore, I will award the rates as requested. b. Hours Expended Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Upon review, the overall number of hours billed appears to be largely reasonable. I have reviewed the billing entries and find that they adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. However, a small reduction is required. It appears that Mr. Rose billed for time performing tasks which are traditionally 3 OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys- forum-hourly-rate-fee-schedules (last visited July 28, 2025). 3 handled by paralegals, mostly for acquiring medical records. See Fees App. Ex. 1 at 1- 4, 7-13. “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney's rate.” Riggins v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Petitioner’s counsel billed approximately 8.3 hours for these tasks from 2018, through 2021, totaling $2,867.80. This amount will be reduced by 50%, resulting in a reduction of $1,433.90. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $45,159.70. c. Attorneys’ Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a total of $29,585.43 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. at 4-5. These costs are comprised of acquisition of medical records, legal research article, the Court’s filing fee, and expert fees. Petitioner requests an hourly rate of $600.00 per hour for 46.5 hours, totaling $27,900, for expert services provided by of neurologist, Robert J. Adams, MS, MD. Fees App. Ex. 4. According to his curriculum vitae, Dr. Adams received his medical degree with a distinction in neurophysiology from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in 1980, he completed his internship at the same institution in 1981, and then completed a three-year residency at the Medical College of Georgia, Department of Neurology, in 1985. Fees App. Ex. 5 at 1. He is licensed to practice medicine in Georgia and South Carolina, and is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, with a subspecialty in Vascular Neurology. Id. Dr. Adams has held various academic and faculty positions since 1981, and at the time of his expert reports, he was a consultant with the Piedmont Augusta Hospital (formerly University Hospital), a consultant at the Augusta VA Medical Center, and faculty at the Medical University of South Carolina (“MUSC”). Id. at 1-2. His current faculty positions at MUSC include Professor of Neuroscience, University Eminent Scholar, Director of South Carolina Center of Economic Excellence in Stroke, and Full Member of the Graduate Faculty. Id. at 2. Throughout his career, Dr. Adams has participated in multiple intramural committees, extramural activities, editorial boards, was a scientific publication reviewer, received multiple grants and honors, is a member of several scientific and professional societies, and has authored numerous abstracts, articles, and publications. Id. at 2-35. I acknowledge Dr. Adams’ significant experience as a neurologist and his qualifications to serve as an expert in this case; however, I find that petitioner has not met her burden to establish that a rate of $600.00 per hour for Dr. Adams’ work is reasonable. This appears to be Dr. Adams’ first case in the Vaccine Program. Other neurologists with more extensive experience have typically awarded less for their Vaccine Program work. For instance, Dr. Lawrence Steinman, a Stanford University 4 neurology professor with additional specialty in neuroimmunology, with more than forty years of experience as a physician, and extensive experience in the Program, who is based in the larger geographical forum San Francisco, has typically been awarded an hourly rate of $500.00 to $550.00 for his Program work. See, e.g., Langley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-837V, 2023 WL 7221461, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 7, 2023) (granting $500.00 per hour for Dr. Steinman's work); Morrison v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-386V, 2023 WL 1873254, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 10, 2023) (granting $550.00 per hour for work Dr. Steinman performed in 2021 and 2022). While Dr. Adams’ credentials are impressive, they do not reflect that a rate of $600.00 per hour is warranted. In fact, while “several neurologists have previously been awarded $500.00 per hour, such a rate is typically reserved for experts who not only possess top of the line credentials, but also have extensive Vaccine Program experience.” Finkelstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-212V, 2022 WL 3135918, at *2–3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 1, 2022) (reducing an expert neurologist’s hourly rate from $500.00 to $450.00 based on “his credentials and the quality of his work product[,]” as well as his lack of experience in the Program). Even neurologists with extensive Program experience and noteworthy credentials, such as Dr. Carlo Tornatore, whose experience includes a professorship of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center and a vice chairmanship of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital’s neurology department, are typically awarded less than $500.00 per hour. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-907V, 2020 WL 8766524, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 4, 2020) (noting that Dr. Tornatore “typically receives $400 per hour”); Jones v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1239V, 2019 WL 7496602, at *4–5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 20, 2019) (reducing Dr. Tornatore's hourly rate from $500.00 per hour to $400.00 per hour for work performed from 2015 to 2017 and to $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2018 “in recognition of the overall work he has provided for the Vaccine Program[ ]” and his work in the case). The evidence submitted demonstrates that Dr. Adams was well-qualified to opine in this case; however, his experience does not warrant an elevated rate, or the rates typically reserved for experts with extraordinary credentials and experience. Based on the evidence submitted and the rates awarded to other neurologists in the Vaccine Program, I find that a reasonable hourly rate for Dr. Adams’ work in this case is $500.00 per hour. Accordingly, I will reduce Petitioner's reward by $4,650.00. I find that the remainder of the costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $24,935.43. II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), I have reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. I find it reasonable to compensate petitioner and his counsel as follows: a lump sum in the amount of $70,095.13, representing reimbursement for 5 petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 6