VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01124 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01124 Petitioner: Rebecca Hawes Filed: 2021-03-29 Decided: 2025-04-29 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-01-07 Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 135000 AI-assisted case summary: On March 29, 2021, Rebecca Hawes filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in early January 2019 caused Guillain-Barre syndrome. The entitlement dispute focused on proof that she actually received a covered flu vaccine on January 7, 2019, because the record contained some date inconsistency. The medical story in the public findings began soon after vaccination. Ms. Hawes presented to an emergency department on January 21, 2019 with disequilibrium, paresthesias, and gait difficulty. On January 22, a record noted a recent flu vaccine, and on January 24 she was transferred for treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Chief Special Master Corcoran found the vaccine evidence sufficient despite the January 6/January 7 discrepancy and granted entitlement on April 19, 2024. Damages were later resolved by proffer. The public damages decision does not provide a full rehabilitation or long-term functional narrative. On April 29, 2025, the Chief Special Master awarded $135,000.00 as a lump sum through counsel for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. A later fee decision was separate from the injury award. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine January 7, 2019; GBS. COMPENSATED. Entitlement dispute concerned proof of covered vaccination/date; records showed Jan. 21, 2019 disequilibrium, paresthesias, and gait difficulty, Jan. 22 recent flu vaccine note, and Jan. 24 transfer for GBS treatment. Chief SM Corcoran found vaccine proof sufficient and granted entitlement April 19, 2024. Damages April 29, 2025: $135,000.00 lump sum. Petition filed March 29, 2021. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01124-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-05-20 Pages: 6 Docket text: H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/19/2024 ) regarding 39 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 6 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1124V REBECCA HAWES, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 19, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT1 On March 29, 2021, Rebecca Hawes 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 from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 7, 2019. Petition at 1. For the reasons discussed below, I find that it is more likely than not that Petitioner received a flu vaccine on January 6 or 7, 2019. I. Relevant Procedural History 1 Because this Fact 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 Fact 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-01124-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 6 With her Petition, Ms. Hawes filed the affidavit and medical records required by the Vaccine Act. See Ex. 1-8, filed March 29, 2021, ECF No. 1. Despite her efforts, including a subpoena, Petitioner was unable to provide a vaccine administration record. On September 8, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation because “Petitioner has failed to establish by preponderant evidence that she in-fact received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Rule 4(c) Report at 8. On January 31, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) arguing that, despite the lack of an official administration record, her contemporaneous records coupled with sworn testimony from witnesses provide preponderant evidence that she received an influenza vaccination on January 7, 2019. Mot. at 5-7. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on May 18, 2023 (ECF No. 37) and Petitioner filed a reply (“Repl.”) on June 14, 2023 (ECF No. 38). II. Issue At issue is whether, despite the absence of a vaccine record, Petitioner received a flu vaccine on January 7, 2019, as alleged. III. Authority Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section 11(c)(1). As a threshold matter, to prevail under the Vaccine Act a petitioner must establish that she “received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.” Section 11(c)(1)(A). When presented with preponderant evidence – such as consistent references in contemporaneously created medical records and/or credible witness testimony - special masters have found sufficient proof of vaccination even in cases lacking a written contemporaneous record memorializing the event. Hinton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1140V, 2018 WL 3991001, at *10-11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 9, 2018); Gambo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-0691V, 2014 WL 7739572, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 18, 2014); Lamberti v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-0507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2007). However, evidence has found to be insufficient in cases involving inconsistencies related to Petitioner’s vaccination status and the events surrounding vaccination. Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0414V, 2021 WL 4190265, at *6-7, 9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 6 19, 2021) aff’d 157 Fed. Cl. 777 (2021) (petitioner’s reliance primarily on later notations of an allergic reaction). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03- 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25, 1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational). 3 Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/20/24 Page 4 of 6 IV. Findings of Fact I make these findings after a complete review of the record, including all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I base my findings on the following evidence: • In both her Petition and affidavit, Petitioner alleges that she received a flu vaccine on January 7, 2019 from her primary care provider, Dr. Gregory Moreland. Petition at ¶1; Ex. 8 at ¶2. • The record of Petitioner’s January 7, 2019 appointment does not contain any reference to vaccination. Ex. 5 at 11-12. Dr. Moreland’s office submitted a claim for the January 7, 2019 office visit to Petitioner’s insurance, but it does not reference or seek reimbursement for the cost of a vaccination administered on that date. Ex. 14 at 5. • Petitioner previously received flu vaccines at Dr. Moreland’s office on January 13, 2016 and on October 5, 2016. Although the record from those visits do not mention any vaccinations (see Ex. 5 at 28, 32), Petitioner’s insurance was billed for both office visits and both vaccinations. See Ex. 14 at 3. • On January 21, 2019, Petitioner was treated in the emergency room for complaints of “disequilibrium, paresthesias, and gait difficulty.” Ex. 2 at 59. She reported that her symptoms began the previous Friday (January 18, 2019). Id. at 72-74. During a neurology consult on the same day, Petitioner reported that “[o]n January this 6 she got a flu shot.” Id. at 99. During an evaluation with a hospital ophthalmologist on January 22, 2019, it was recorded that Petitioner had a “recent flu vaccine in Dec.” Id. at 114. • On January 24, 2019, Petitioner was transferred to another hospital for treatment for her GBS. Ex. 2 at 119; Ex. 3 at 6. Upon her admission, Petitioner reported that “she had a flu shot 1/7/19.” Id. at 10. • In a letter dated February 26, 2020, Dr. Moreland’s office indicated that it did not have a vaccine administration record for a flu vaccination on January 7, 2019. Ex. 1 at 1. • Petitioner attempted to subpoena further records from Dr. Moreland’s office. ECF No. 19-21. The process server found Dr. Moreland’s office closed and 4 Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/20/24 Page 5 of 6 the building vacant. Ex. 11 at 1. The process server stated in his affidavit that he spoke to a neighboring business and was told that Dr. Moreland’s office had been closed since 2020. Id. • As of January 7, 2019, Petitioner was then living with Mr. Steve Mallett. See Ex. 12 at ¶2. Mr. Mallett has provided a declaration in which he states that he “recall[s Petitioner] telling him that she received a flu vaccine” on January 7, 2019 and that he recalls “the onset of her symptoms, including trouble balancing, beginning a few weeks after her flu vaccine.” Id. at ¶3. • Petitioner’s mother also provided a declaration stating that she spoke to Petitioner “both before and after her appointment at Dr. Moreland’s office” on January 7, 2019. Ex. 13 at ¶2. She recalls that Petitioner told her that “she received a flu vaccine.” Id. In this case, the medical records establish that Petitioner consistently reported that she had received a flu shot very close in time to the start of her GBS symptoms. At the time of her emergency room visit on January 21, 2019, Petitioner reported receiving the vaccine on January 6, 2019. Ex. 2 at 99. When she transferred hospitals three days later, Petitioner again reported that she had received a flu vaccine (albeit on a different date - January 7, 2019). Ex. 3 at 10. Both of those reports further state that Petitioner reported cold symptoms the weekend after her vaccination but which had resolved prior to her GBS symptoms. Although there is one notation to a flu vaccine in December from Petitioner’s hospitalization, it states only “recent flu vaccine in Dec.” without any further context. Ex. 2 at 114. Petitioner’s consistent statements regarding her vaccination and the subsequent course of her illness, particularly when stated only 14-15 days after her vaccination and for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment, provide strong evidence in support of the alleged vaccination event. Both parties make arguments for or against the fact of vaccination by relying on the available records of Dr. Moreland’s office and the records of Petitioner’s insurance claims. Petitioner argues that her insurance records, which show claims for flu vaccines on January 13, 2016 and October 5, 2016, confirm that “it was not standard practice for Dr. Moreland’s office to document when a vaccine was given.” Mot. at 5. Respondent, conversely, argues that because Petitioner’s insurance records do not contain a claim for a flu vaccination on January 7, 2019 (but did for flu vaccines in 2016), his office likely only billed for vaccinations when administered. Resp. at 6. The most I can glean from these competing interpretations of the record is that Dr. Moreland’s recordkeeping cannot reasonably be seen as reliable, diminishing the weight I can give to this subset of evidence. 5 Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 40 Filed 05/20/24 Page 6 of 6 Overall, however, Petitioner’s own assertions – which were issued to contemporaneous treaters, close in time to the alleged vaccination - are sufficiently corroborated by the medical record to accept her contention that she likely received a flu vaccine in January 2019. Her allegations are also corroborated by witness statements obtained from both her mother and roommate at the time. Thus, even though the fact of vaccination cannot be conclusively established, it is enough of a “close call” to be decided in Petitioner’s favor – as Program case law reasonably counsels. Roberts v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 29, 2013). Thus, Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence establishing that she received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in January 2019 – although it cannot clearly be determined whether she received the vaccine on January 6 or January 7, 2019. V. Scheduling Order In light of my findings regarding Petitioner’s vaccination, Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed following my ruling by no later than Friday, May 24, 2024. The status report shall indicate whether he is willing to engage in discussions regarding settlement or proffer or wishes to continue to defend this case. Petitioner should finalize a reasonable demand which she should convey, along with any needed supporting documentation, to Respondent. Petitioner shall file a status report updating me on the status of her demand by no late than Friday, May 24, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01124-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-05-29 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/29/2025) regarding 59 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1124V REBECCA HAWES, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 29, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On March 29, 2021, Rebecca Hawes 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 from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) following an influenza vaccine she received on January 7, 2019. Petition at ¶ 1; Stipulation, filed at April 28, 2025, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-related injury for more than six months. Petition at ¶ 6; Stipulation at ¶ 4. “Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a GBS Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged GBS, or any other injury; and denies that Petitioner’s current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 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-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on April 28, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,3 stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision 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 Section 15(a). Id. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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 The filed Stipulation included an electronic signature page that has been removed from the attached to protect the confidential information of the signers. 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 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 3 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) REBECCA HAWES, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 21-1124V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Rebecca Hawes, 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 influenza (“flu”)vaccine, which vaccines are contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42C.F.R. § 100.3 (a). 2. Petitioner received herflu vaccination on or about January 7, 2019. 3. The vaccination was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”) within the time period set forth in the Table following administration of the flu vaccine. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner 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 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a GBS Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged GBS, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner’s current condition is a sequelae 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: 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. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 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, 2 Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 5 of 7 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. 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 attorneys’ 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 or about January 7, 2019, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about March 29, 2021, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 21-1124V. 3 Case 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 6 of 7 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. 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 causedpetitioner’s alleged GBS or any other injury or petitioner’s current condition, 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 1:21-vv-01124-UNJ Document 63 Filed 05/29/25 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01124-cl-extra-11129278 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-28 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10662691 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1124V REBECCA HAWES, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 29, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Marie Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On March 29, 2021, Rebecca Hawes 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 suffered Guillain-Barre syndrome following an influenza vaccine received on January 7, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. I issued a factual finding regarding vaccine administration on April 19, 2024 (ECF No. 39), following briefing by the parties, and a decision awarding damages on April 29, 2025 (ECF No. 59), based on the parties’ stipulation. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $39,936.21 (representing $39,054.50 in fees plus $881.71 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 12, 2025, ECF No. 64. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 64 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on June 26, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case and respectfully requests that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2- 3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 65. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein. Regarding the billing, I also note this case required additional briefing regarding proof of vaccine administration. See Petitioner’s Motion for a Factual Ruling, filed Jan. 31, 2023, ECF No. 29; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Motion for Factual Ruling, filed June 14, 2023, ECF No. 38. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 9.4 hours drafting the brief and 16.2 hours drafting the responsive brief, for a combined total of 25.6 hours. ECF No. 64 at 12-16. I find this time to have been reasonably incurred. Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 64 at 24-39. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $39,936.21 (representing $39,054.50 in fees plus $881.71 in 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.3 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3