VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01908 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01908 Petitioner: Alice Rivera Filed: 2020-12-21 Decided: 2026-02-10 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-26 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 135000 AI-assisted case summary: On December 21, 2020, Alice Rivera filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 26, 2019 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The parties resolved the case through a joint stipulation. Respondent did not concede vaccine causation in the public stipulation, and the decision does not provide a detailed medical chronology, imaging findings, injection history, therapy course, or expert analysis. On February 10, 2026, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and awarded Ms. Rivera $135,000.00 as a lump sum, payable through counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. Earlier interim attorney-fee proceedings were separate from the injury-compensation award. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine on October 26, 2019, allegedly causing SIRVA; COMPENSATED by stipulation. Public stipulation gives limited clinical detail and no expert mechanism. Award $135,000 lump sum. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran, petition filed December 21, 2020; decision February 10, 2026. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01908-cl-extra-11118861 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-12 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10652274 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1908V Filed: July 18, 2025 Special Master Horner ALICE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Michael Adly Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for petitioner. Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On December 21, 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”), or alternatively a shoulder injury caused-in- fact by her vaccination, following her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 26, 2019. (Id.) Based on the allegations of the petition, the case was initially assigned to the Chief Special Master for potential informal resolution as part of the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). (ECF Nos. 19-20.) However, settlement discussions were unsuccessful, and the Chief Special Master reassigned the case to the undersigned on June 3, 2025, in light of petitioner’s request that she be permitted to file an expert report. (ECF Nos. 87-88.) 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 to the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. 1 On February 20, 2024, while the case was still pending in the SPU, petitioner moved for an award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $37,883.25, including $36,642.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,241.25 in attorneys’ costs. (ECF No. 61, p. 4.) Respondent filed his response on February 28, 2024. (ECF No. 62.) Respondent argued that an interim award of attorneys’ fees and costs was not appropriate given that the case remained in the SPU. (Id. at 2.) However, respondent deferred to the special master with respect to the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 3.) Additionally, respondent objected to certain billing and costs. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner did not file a reply.3 Section 15(e)(1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the special master to award “reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other costs.” § 300aa-15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act or, even if they are unsuccessful, if the special master finds that the petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, respondent does not dispute this petition had a reasonable basis, instead deferring to the special master on that point. (ECF No. 62, p. 3.) Moreover, the Chief Special Master observed in his prior finding of fact that, although a Table claim may be doubtful, “a non-Table claim is likely viable,” albeit requiring expert support that remains outstanding at this time. (ECF No. 79, p. 14.) Additionally, the Federal Circuit has concluded that interim fee awards are permissible and appropriate under the Vaccine Act. Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F.3d 1372, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Avera, 515 F.3d at 1352. In Avera, the Federal Circuit stated, “[i]nterim fees are particularly appropriate in cases where proceedings are protracted and costly experts must be retained.” 515 F.3d at 1352. In Shaw, the Federal Circuit clarified that “where the claimant establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists a good faith basis for the claim, it is proper for the special master to award interim attorneys’ fees.” 609 F.3d at 1375. Here, respondent’s objection was premised on the streamlined and expedited nature of SPU proceedings, but that argument was essentially mooted by the reassignment of the case to the undersigned for more thorough litigation. The amount at issue on this motion just barely meets the minimum threshold for attorneys’ fees that special masters have often used to assess when a hardship is likely indicated, though the costs fall well below what could be considered significant. E.g., Chinea v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-95V, 2019 WL 3206829, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 11, 2019) (observing three factors that have been considered when exercising discretion to award interim attorneys’ fees: (1) whether the fee request exceeds $30,000; (2) whether the costs requested, in the aggregate, are more than $15,000; and 3 After this case was reassigned to the undersigned, petitioner’s counsel e-mailed my law clerk on June 16, 2025, copying respondent’s counsel, asking whether I would entertain the motion for interim fees and costs. He indicated that “I can file a response to Respondent’s objections if the Court is going to entertain my request for interim fees.” However, as the docket reflects, the deadline for petitioner’s filing of any reply was March 6, 2024. See also Vaccine Rule 20(b)(2) (“A reply to a response or an objection may be filed within 7 days after service of the response or objection.”) 2 (3) if the case has been pending for more than 18 months (citing Knorr v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1169V, 2017 WL 2461375 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 17, 2017))). Given that counsel of record is a solo practitioner, and given the length of time this case has remained pending, I have concluded as a matter of discretion that an interim award is appropriate.4 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 ex rel. Sevier 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.”). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1347-48. 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. (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. 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 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)). Attorneys’ costs must be reasonable as well. See Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992) (“The conjunction ‘and’ conjoins both ‘attorneys’ fees’ and ‘other costs’ and the word ‘reasonable’ necessarily modifies both. Not only must any request for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees be reasonable, so also must any request for reimbursement of costs.”), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 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 (2009). Regarding the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees, the undersigned has reviewed the attorney billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. (ECF No. 61-1.) I find that the amount requested is reasonable. The hourly rates at which Mr. 4 Counsel is cautioned that multiple motions for interim attorneys’ fees and costs are disfavored. See, e.g., Patel v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-848V, 2019 WL 2296818, at *2 n.3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 11, 2019) (one special master noting “it is not my practice to allow multiple interim awards of fees and costs . . . and [petitioner] should therefore refrain from requesting another interim award again until the case fully concludes”); see also Kottenstette v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1016V, 2019 WL 5709372, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 11, 2019) (the undersigned granting a second interim fee award where the Court of Federal Claims entertained a stay of respondent’s motion for review). Even accounting for the fact that this case has been removed from the SPU, I do not anticipate that litigation of this case will be extensive enough to warrant a second interim award of attorneys’ fees and costs. I will closely consider whether fees associated with the preparation and filing of any such a motion were reasonably incurred. 3 Baseluos has billed for work performed in years 2020 through 2024 are consistent with what has been awarded in prior cases. E.g., Romero v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1625V, 2024 WL 3878869, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 26, 2024); Bristow v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-457V, 2022 WL 17821111, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 15, 2022). Respondent objects to hours billed for petitioner’s untimely reply on her motion for a ruling on the written record. (ECF No. 62, p. 4 (citing ECF No. 61-1, pp. 13-15; ECF No. 55).) However, subsequent to the parties’ briefing of the instant motion, the Chief Special Master did consider petitioner’s reply in reaching a finding of fact in this case despite the fact that the reply was late. (ECF No. 79, p. 4.) Because the Chief Special Master accepted the late reply without comment and considered the substantive arguments made therein, I conclude that this moots respondent’s objection. Regarding the reasonableness of the requested costs, respondent objects to the cost associated with securing the narrative report by Dr. Omar Hussamy. (ECF No. 62, p. 4 (citing Ex. 31; ECF No. 61-2, p. 9).) Respondent argues that, because Dr. Hussamy is petitioner’s employer, there is a direct conflict of interest, meaning it was unreasonable and inappropriate to retain Dr. Hussamy to provide an opinion in this matter. (Id.) However, there are additional issues that require elucidation. First, the single receipt provided in support of this cost indicates only that a payment was made in the total amount of $600 with an added handwritten note suggesting the payment was for a “narrative report.” (ECF No. 61-2, p. 9.) Thus, even before reaching respondent’s concern, I am unable to tell from the receipt alone, with no accompanying invoice, whether the amount sought would be reasonable under a lodestar analysis – while the amount is obviously low, the narrative is also not substantial. However, it is also not clear whether Dr. Hussamy has actually participated in this case as an expert. His letter only indicates that he was asked “to provide a narrative report” regarding his patient, with no indication he had been retained to provide an expert opinion. (Ex. 31, p. 1.). The resulting narrative hews fairly closely to what could fairly be characterized as the observations of a treating physician, which he was. Zumwalt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-994V, 2018 WL 6975184, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 27, 2018) (finding that the treating physician as a fact witness “should receive some fee for taking the time to testify,” but not a fee equivalent to an expert). Finally, and relatedly, it is not entirely clear for what specific purpose petitioner sought out Dr. Hussamy’s narrative, especially because it was filed after petitioner had already moved for a ruling on the written record. This, of course, has bearing on whether the cost was reasonably incurred. Given all of these issues, I will deny the requested reimbursement of $600 for Dr. Hussamy’s narrative without prejudice so that the parties may address this cost in greater depth in connection with final fees and costs. Accord Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-411V, 2011 WL 6941671, at *8-9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 26, 2011) (declining to rule on an interim basis where the status of the witness was unclear). Petitioner may resubmit this cost with an appropriate invoice and explanation as part of her final motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and may then address 4 respondent’s objection.5 I have otherwise concluded that the requested costs are reasonable and sufficiently documented. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded interim attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $37,283.25, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 5Petitioner is also now on notice as to respondent’s objection to this cost and is therefore encouraged to address the objection in her initial motion rather than waiting for her opportunity to file a reply. 6 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. 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01908-1 Date issued/filed: 2026-03-19 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/10/2026) regarding 116 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (cd) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1908V Filed: February 10, 2026 ALICE RIVERA, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Michael Adly Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for petitioner. Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On December 21, 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her October 26, 2019 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 13; Stipulation, filed February 10, 2026, at ¶¶ 1-2, 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; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. ” 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). 3 All references to the petition within this decision refer to the ECF pagination. Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on February 10, 2026, 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 $135,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner 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. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ALICE RIVERA, Petitioner, No. 20-1908V v. Special Master Horner ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Alice Rivera (“petitioner”) filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the “Vaccine 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. § 100.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 26, 2019. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) within the time period set forth in the Table following administration of the vaccine. Petitioner alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner’s behalf as a result of the alleged injury. Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a): A lump sum of $135,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. 9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. 10. Petitioner and petitioner’s attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 7 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(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 attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(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 petitioner’s individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner’s 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-10 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 October 26, 2019, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about December 21, 2020, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 20-1908V. 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. 3 Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6 of 7 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties’ settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties’ respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner’s current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION / / / / / / / / 4 Case 1:20-vv-01908-UNJ Document 123 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of 7