VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01078 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01078 Petitioner: James E. Britt Filed: 2021-03-18 Decided: 2023-03-06 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-09-19 Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 465575 AI-assisted case summary: On March 18, 2021, Ethel M. Britt, as the personal representative of the estate of James E. Britt, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that James E. Britt suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on September 19, 2019, and that he subsequently died from his injuries. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on October 17, 2022, conceding entitlement to compensation. The respondent stated that the petitioner met the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, that the case was timely filed, the vaccine was received in the United States, and that Mr. Britt satisfied the statutory severity requirement. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on October 18, 2022, finding the petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on February 3, 2023, the parties submitted a proffer for the award of compensation. The respondent proffered an award of $465,575.18, which included $212,500.00 for pain and suffering, $250,000.00 for the death benefit, and $3,075.18 for unreimbursed medical expenses. The petitioner agreed with the proffered award. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages on March 6, 2023, awarding the petitioner a lump sum payment of $465,575.18, payable by check to the petitioner, representing compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and respondent counsel was Mark Kim Hellie from the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner alleged that James E. Britt suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on September 19, 2019, and subsequently died from his injuries. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the condition was a Table injury and that statutory requirements were met. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of causation, expert testimony, or detailed clinical information regarding the onset, symptoms, tests, or treatments. The award was based on a stipulation between the parties. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the Ruling on Entitlement on October 18, 2022, and the Decision Awarding Damages on March 6, 2023. The total award was $465,575.18, comprising $212,500.00 for pain and suffering, $250,000.00 for the death benefit, and $3,075.18 for unreimbursed medical expenses. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent counsel was Mark Kim Hellie. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01078-0 Date issued/filed: 2022-11-17 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/18/2022) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01078-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1078V UNPUBLISHED ETHEL M. BRITT, as Personal Chief Special Master Corcoran Representative of the Estate of James E. Britt, Filed: October 18, 2022 Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 18, 2021, Ethel M. Britt filed a petition for compensation, on behalf of her deceased husband, James E. Britt, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that Mr. Britt suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on September 19, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that Mr. Britt died from his injuries. Petition at ¶4. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012). Case 1:21-vv-01078-UNJ Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 On October 17, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that it is his “position that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”).” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that Mr. Britt satisfies the statutory severity requirement.” 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-01078-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-03-06 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/03/2023) regarding 32 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01078-UNJ Document 36 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1078V UNPUBLISHED ETHEL M. BRITT, as Personal Chief Special Master Corcoran Representative of the Estate of JAMES E. BRITT, Filed: February 3, 2023 Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); v. Damages Decision Based on Proffer; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain- SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Barre Syndrome (GBS) HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On March 18, 2021, Ethel M. Britt, as personal representative of the estate of James E. Britt, 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 Mr. Britt suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccination he received on September 19, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On October 18, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. On February 3, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $465,575.18, 1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012). Case 1:21-vv-01078-UNJ Document 36 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 5 representing $212,500.00 for pain and suffering, $250,000.00 for the death benefit, and $3,075.18 for unreimbursed medical expenses. Proffer at 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 $465,575.18, representing $212,500.00 for pain and suffering, $250,000.00 for the death benefit, and $3,075.18 for unreimbursed medical 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.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-01078-UNJ Document 36 Filed 03/06/23 Page 3 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ETHEL M. BRITT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JAMES E. BRITT, Petitioner, Case No. 21-1078V (ECF) CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER v. CORCORAN SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION I. Procedural History On March 18, 2021, Ethel M. Britt (“petitioner”), as personal representative of the estate of James E. Britt, filed a petition for compensation (“Pet.”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. Petitioner alleges that James E. Britt suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome and subsequently died as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 19, 2019. Pet. at 1. On October 17, 2022, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, conceding entitlement in this case. ECF Doc. No. 23 at 1. On October 18, 2022, the Court issued its Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF Doc. No. 24 at 2. Case 1:21-vv-01078-UNJ Document 36 Filed 03/06/23 Page 4 of 5 II. Items of Compensation and Form of the Award Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $465,575.18. The award is comprised of the following: $212,500.00 for pain and suffering; $250,000.00 for the death benefit, and $3,075.18 for unreimbursed medical expenses. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) regarding James E. Britt’s September 19, 2019, flu vaccination. Petitioner agrees. III. Form of the Award The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $465,575.18, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees. Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. 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 LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 2 Case 1:21-vv-01078-UNJ Document 36 Filed 03/06/23 Page 5 of 5 s/ Mark K. Hellie MARK K. HELLIE Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 T: (202) 616-4208 E: mark.hellie@usdoj.gov DATED: February 3, 2023 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01078-cl-extra-10737055 Date issued/filed: 2023-11-13 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270465 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1078V ETHEL M. BRITT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JAMES Chief Special Master Corcoran E. BRITT, Petitioner, Filed: October 10, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On March 18, 2021, Ethel M. Britt, as personal representative of the estate of James E. Britt, 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 Mr. Britt suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on September 19, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On February 3, 2023, 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). I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 32. Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $26,931.37 (representing $25,636.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,295.37 in attorney’s costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed Aug. 2, 2023, ECF No. 37. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner also has filed a signed statement indicating that Petitioner incurred $9.10 in out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the Motion on Aug. 16, 2023, stating 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, ECF No. 38. Petitioner filed a reply on Aug. 17, 2023, requesting an award of fees and costs as indicated in Petitioner’s Motion. ECF No. 39. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons listed 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 & 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 2 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 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for attorney’s performing work in this matter. For attorney Leah Durant: $395 for time billed in 2020; $420 for time billed in 2021; $441 for time billed in 2022; and $463 for time billed in 2023. For attorney Richard Armada: $420 for time billed in 2022, and $441 for time billed in 2023. And for attorney Kate Coleman, $435 per hour for time billed in 2021. The rates requested for Ms. Durant and Mr. Armada are reasonable, and consistent with prior determinations and shall therefore be awarded herein. Ms. Coleman, however, was previously awarded the rate of $415 per hour for time billed in 2021, less than what is being requested herein. See Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-990V, 2021 WL 1605960 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar 24, 2021). I find no reason to deviate from the previously awarded rate. Accordingly, I reduce Ms. Coleman’s rate to be consistent with her previously-awarded rate. This results in a reduction of attorney’s fees to be awarded of $254.00. 3 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $1,295.37 in overall costs. ECF No. 37-2. This amount is comprised of obtaining medical records, shipping costs, and the court’s filing fee. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable and shall award them in full. The personal costs incurred by Petitioner are also properly awarded. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $26,686.47 4 as follows: 3 This amount consists of ($435 - $415 = $20 x 12.70 hrs = $254.00). 4 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as f ees f or legal services rendered. 3 • A lump sum of $26,677.37, representing reimbursement for fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Leah V. Durant; and • A lump sum of $9.10, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. 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. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991). 5 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