VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01518 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01518 Petitioner: Linda Potts Filed: 2020-11-03 Decided: 2024-09-24 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-11-14 Condition: transverse myelitis Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 65000 AI-assisted case summary: Linda Potts filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 3, 2020. She alleged that the influenza vaccine she received on November 14, 2017, caused her to suffer from transverse myelitis. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccine caused Petitioner's alleged transverse myelitis, denied that the vaccine caused or significantly aggravated any injury, and denied that Petitioner's current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, the parties filed a joint stipulation on August 15, 2024, agreeing that Ms. Potts should receive compensation. The stipulation stated that Ms. Potts would receive a lump sum of $65,000.00, representing all damages available under the program. Special Master Herbrina Sanders found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court, ordering that judgment be entered accordingly. The case was resolved through this stipulation, with Ms. Potts receiving compensation for her alleged vaccine injury. Bridget McCullough of Muller Brazil, LLP, represented the Petitioner, and Matthew Murphy of the United States Department of Justice represented the Respondent. The decision was issued on September 24, 2024. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Linda Potts alleged that the influenza vaccine administered on November 14, 2017, caused her transverse myelitis. The respondent denied causation, aggravation, or sequelae. The parties reached a stipulation for compensation, agreeing to a lump sum award of $65,000.00 for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Special Master Herbrina Sanders approved the stipulation, and judgment was to be entered accordingly. The case was resolved via stipulation on August 15, 2024, with the decision issued September 24, 2024. Petitioner was represented by Bridget McCullough (Muller Brazil, LLP) and Respondent by Matthew Murphy (U.S. Department of Justice). Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01518-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-24 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/16/2024) regarding 62 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (kis) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 16, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LINDA POTTS, * No. 20-1518V * Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bridget McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Matthew Murphy, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On November 3, 2020, Linda Potts (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 14, 2017 caused her to suffer from transverse myelitis (“TM”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On August 15, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7, ECF No. 61. Respondent “denies that the flu vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged TM; denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated any injury; and denies that [P]etitioner’s current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” Id. ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation. See id. ¶ 7. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Case 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 7 The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $65,000.00 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). Id. ¶ 8. I approve 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/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders 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 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01518-UNJ Document 66 Filed 09/24/24 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01518-cl-extra-11126627 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-25 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10660040 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 30, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LINDA POTTS, * No. 20-1518V * Petitioner, * Special Master Young * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner; Alexis B. Babcock, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On November 3, 2020, Linda Potts, (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2018)2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 14, 2017, caused her to suffer from transverse myelitis (“TM”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On August 15, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on August 16, 2024. ECF No. 62. On January 8, 2025, Petitioner filed a final motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (“Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”) (ECF No. 69). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $54,562.29, representing $45,263.10 in attorneys’ fees, and $9,299.19 in attorneys’ costs. Pet’r’s 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Mot. for AFC at 2. Petitioner did not indicate that she personally incurred any costs in pursuit of her petition. See Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC. Respondent did not file a response. I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 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, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347–48 (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 895. 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. A. Hourly Rate The decision in 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 2 Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules can be accessed online.3 Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Ms. Bridget McCullough, $250.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $275.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $300.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $350.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2024, and $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; and for Mr. Max Muller, $425.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. A. Additionally, Petitioner requests between $125.00 to $177.00 per hour for work performed by paralegals from 2019-2024. Id. These rates are consistent with what counsel and paralegals have previously been awarded in the Vaccine Program and I find them to be reasonable herein. B. Reasonable Number of Hours 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 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Upon review, I find the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and upon review, I do not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $45,263.10. C. 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 $9,299.19 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquisition of medical records, postage, and the Court’s filing fee. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. B at 1. The amount also includes life care planner services provided by Ms. Roberta Hurley, and related travel expenses for the life care planner visit, including her lodging, flight, meals, and parking, totaling $7,683.13. These costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought. II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2018), I have reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, I find that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and her counsel as follows: 3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly- rate-fee-schedules. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323. 3 Attorneys’ Fees Requested $45,263.10 (Reduction to Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $45,263.10 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $9,299.19 (Reduction to Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $9,299.19 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $54,562.29 Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $54,562.29, 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. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina Sanders Young Herbrina Sanders Young Special Master 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. 4