VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01958 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01958 Petitioner: Harlan Field Filed: 2020-12-23 Decided: 2024-07-15 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-17 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 40019 AI-assisted case summary: Harlan Field filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 17, 2019. The case proceeded as a contested matter, with the respondent disputing that Mr. Field met the criteria for a Table claim, specifically the 48-hour onset requirement and the residual effects lasting more than six months. Mr. Field argued that he met all Table requirements for SIRVA and sought $52,500.00 for pain and suffering and $19.35 for unreimbursable medical expenses. After a hearing, the Chief Special Master found that Mr. Field had established entitlement, including satisfying the 48-hour onset requirement and all other SIRVA Table requirements. The court awarded Mr. Field a total of $40,019.35, consisting of $40,000.00 for pain and suffering and $19.35 for actual unreimbursable expenses. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01958-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-07-15 Pages: 3 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/03/2024) regarding 53 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION of Special Master, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01958-UNJ Document 58 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 3 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1958V HARLAN FIELD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 3, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 23, 2020, Harlan Field 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on October 17, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. Because entitlement was contested, the parties were ordered to file briefs addressing whether Petitioner had established a Table claim, and setting forth their respective arguments on damages should I find entitlement in favor of 1 Because this Ruling and 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. 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). Case 1:20-vv-01958-UNJ Document 58 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 3 Petitioner. The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on May 31, 2024. Petitioner argues he has established a Table claim for SIRVA pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) and seeks an award of $52,500.00, in compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering, and $19.35 for his unreimbursable medical expenses. Respondent disputes that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his alleged injury for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine to satisfy the severity requirement under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Respondent also disputes that Petitioner has established a Table claim for SIRVA. Specifically, Respondent argues Petitioner has failed to establish that his shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccine administration pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). Respondent did not recommend specific number to be awarded to Petitioner for damages, instead requesting that I award a figure “consistent with awards in other cases” of a “nature that would be reasonable, fair, and appropriate.” Respondent’s Supplemental Brief at 8. ECF No. 49. After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on entitlement and damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A). An official recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. And as discussed during my oral ruling, in another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standards to be considered in determining entitlement and damages and prior discussions in Sections II and III of Friberg v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1727V, 2022 WL 3152827 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6, 2022) to the instant Ruling and Decision. I incorporate herein Sections II and III of the prior discussion in that decision to the instant ruling and decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my decision awarding entitlement and damages herein. Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that Petitioner has established that he satisfied the 48-hour onset requirement for SIRVA, as well as all other SIRVA Table requirements pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). Additionally, Petitioner has established the additional requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, residual effects of injury lasting six months, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case and that $40,000.00, represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for 2 Case 1:20-vv-01958-UNJ Document 58 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 3 Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.3 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $19.35 in actual unreimbursable expenses. Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $40,019.35, (consisting of $40,000.00 in pain and suffering and $19.35 in past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96- 0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). 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. 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01958-cl-extra-11105287 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-22 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10638700 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1958V HARLAN FIELD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 13, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On December 23, 2020, Harlan Field 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered to him on October 17, 2019. Petition at 1. On June 3, 2024, I issued a decision finding Petitioner entitled to compensation and awarding damages, following briefing and Expedited Motions Day by the parties. ECF No. 53. 1Because 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. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $26,565.93 (representing $25,468.90 for attorney’s fees, $1,044.31 for attorney costs, and $52.72 for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket litigation costs). Petitioner Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed Feb. 25, 2025, ECF No. 60. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that he incurred $52.72 in out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 61. Respondent reacted to the motion on February 26, 2025, representing that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 62. Petitioner filed no reply. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason set forth below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section 15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. 2 Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding entitlement and damages. See Petitioner’s Motion for an Entitlement Ruling on the Record and Memorandum in Support of Damages, Sept. 14, 2023, ECF No. 45; Memorandum in Support of Damages, filed June 6, 2023, ECF No. 46; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Damages Brief, filed May 1, 2024, ECF No. 52; Petitioner’s Minute Entry, dated May 31, 2024 (for May 31, 2024 expedited hearing). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 9.5 hours drafting the entitlement and damages brief and 4.6 hours drafting the responsive entitlement and damages brief, for a combined total of 14.1 hours. ECF No. 60 at 18-19. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s fees requested. However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for the review of status reports and other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 79 at 7, 13, 18-21.3 I note that it is common practice for Conway, Homer, P.C. to have several attorneys assist over the course of a case. In some instances, such as when preparing substantive documents like the petition, briefs, and settlement demands, it is reasonable to have another set of eyes review that document. See, e.g., ECF No. 60 at 17 (entry dated 5/18/23). However, it is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review routine filings, such as status reports and motions for enlargement of time, when those filings were prepared (and billed for) by another attorney. This is not the first time I or other special masters have noted this particular issue concerning Conway, Homer, P.C. billing practices. See, e.g., Manetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). I will not award attorney’s fees for this redundant work. This results in a reduction of $326.50. 3 These entries are dated as follows: 1/11/21, 11/12/21, 6/30/23, 7/31/23, 10/30/24, 4/12/24, 6/5/24, 7/11/24, and 11/4/24. 3 ATTORNEY AND PETITIONER COSTS Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but expenses of $10.00 for copying and $27.57 for postage. ECF No. 60 at 22-36; ECF No. . I will nevertheless allow reimbursement of these unsubstantiated costs. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. ECF No. 62. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $26,239.43 (representing $25,142.40 for attorney’s fees, $1,044.31 attorney costs, and $52.72 for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket litigation costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4