VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01012 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01012 Petitioner: Currin M. Hamilton Filed: 2021-03-01 Decided: 2024-07-23 Vaccine: Td Vaccination date: 2019-08-14 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 50000 AI-assisted case summary: Currin M. Hamilton, an adult, received a Tetanus diphtheria (Td) vaccine in her left deltoid on August 14, 2019. She alleged that this vaccination caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The petition was filed on March 1, 2021. Hamilton stated that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and she had not received prior compensation. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that the petitioner's injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The respondent agreed that Hamilton had no prior history of shoulder issues, her pain occurred within 48 hours post-vaccination, was limited to the injection site, and no other condition explained the pain. The respondent also agreed that she suffered residual effects for more than six months and met all legal prerequisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, the Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement finding Hamilton entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on June 20, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, recommending $50,000.00 for pain and suffering, which the petitioner agreed to. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding Hamilton a lump sum payment of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01012-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-10-30 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/29/2023) regarding 39 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 41 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1012V CURRIN M. HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 29, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nathan Williams, Campbellsville, KY, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 1, 2021, Currin M. Hamilton 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 sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a Tetanus diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine received in her left deltoid on August 14, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and she has not received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 6-11, 13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this Ruling 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 Ruling 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 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 41 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 2 On September 27, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months . . . [and] has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01012-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-07-23 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/20/2024) regarding 53 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1012V CURRIN M. HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 20, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nathan Williams, Campbellsville, KY, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On March 1, 2021, Currin M. Hamilton 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 sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a Tetanus diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine received in her left deltoid on August 14, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and she has not received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 6-11, 13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On September 29, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On June 20, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00. 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. 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 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/23/24 Page 2 of 5 Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $50,000.00 (in pain and suffering) 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief 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 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/23/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) CURRIN HAMILTON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 21-1012V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On March 1, 2021, Currin Hamilton (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following a tetanus-diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine she received on August 14, 2019. Petition at 1. On September 27, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on September 29, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 38; ECF No. 39. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. Case 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/23/24 Page 4 of 5 This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $50,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Currin Hamilton: $50,000.00 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division COLLEEN C. HARTLEY Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01012-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/23/24 Page 5 of 5 s/ Michael J. Lang MICHAEL J. LANG Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 880-0239 Email: Michael.Lang3@usdoj.gov Dated: June 20, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01012-cl-extra-10845300 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-15 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10378712 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1012V CURRIN M. HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: March 12, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nathan Williams, Campbellsville, KY, for Petitioner. Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On March 1, 2021, Currin M. Hamilton 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 alleged that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from a Tetanus diphtheria vaccine received in her left deltoid on August 14, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 20, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 53. 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 inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences 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 $27,938.90 (representing $27,536.90 in fees plus $402.00 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed December 13, 2024, ECF No. 57. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on December 17, 2024, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 58. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons stated below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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. 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 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES A. Hourly Rates The hourly rates requested for attorney Nathan Williams and his associated paralegals are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted herein. However, the hourly rate requested for Mr. Kevin George requires further evaluation. Petitioner is requesting that I endorse the rate of $360 for 2020 work performed by Mr. George. Petitioner represents that Mr. George has been a practicing attorney since 1974 (ECF No. 57-1 at 2). Although his requested rate is within the Vaccine Program’s published range for an attorney of his level of experience, it appears that Mr. George is not licensed to practice in the Court of Federal Claims. An attorney who is not admitted to practice before this Court is not eligible to collect fees at an admitted attorney’s rate for his work. See Underwood v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 00-357V, 2013 WL 3157525, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2013). Accordingly, all time billed by Mr. George will be compensated at a non-attorney rate of $163 per hour. This results in a reduction of fees in the amount of $1,674.50. 3 (In future cases, I will be prepared to award a higher rate once Mr. George becomes admitted to this Court). B. Attorney Litigation Costs Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 57-5. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $26,264.40 (representing $25,862.40 in fees plus $402.00 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account 3 This amount is calculated as: ($360 - $163 = $197 X 8.50 hrs.) = $1,674.50. 3 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 f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4