VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01402 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01402 Petitioner: Geeta Karra Filed: 2021-05-26 Decided: 2023-04-06 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-12-30 Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 130000 AI-assisted case summary: On May 26, 2021, Geeta Karra filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Ms. Karra alleges that she received an influenza vaccine on December 30, 2019, and that this vaccine caused her to develop Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP). She further alleged that she experienced residual effects from her condition for more than six months. The petition stated that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages related to her condition and that the vaccine was administered in the United States. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Ms. Karra's conditions or any other injury. On April 6, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Special Master Daniel T. Horner reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ms. Karra was awarded a lump sum of $130,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages. The decision was issued by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. Petitioner's counsel was Emily Beth Ashe of Anapol Weiss, and respondent's counsel was Amanda Pasciuto of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Geeta Karra alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on December 30, 2019, caused her to develop Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP), with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which was adopted by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. The public decision does not describe the specific medical or scientific theory of causation, nor does it name any medical experts or detail the mechanism of injury. The award was a lump sum of $130,000.00 for all items of damages. Petitioner was represented by Emily Beth Ashe, and respondent by Amanda Pasciuto. The decision date was April 6, 2023. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01402-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-05-02 Pages: 6 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/6/2023) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (st) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01402-UNJ Document 44 Filed 05/02/23 Page 1 of 6 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1402V Filed: April 6, 2023 UNPUBLISHED GEETA KARRA, Petitioner, Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”); Guillain- HUMAN SERVICES, Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) Respondent. Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner. Amanda Pasciuto , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On May 26, 2021, 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”), acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“AIDP”), and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on December 30, 2019. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed April 6, 2023, at ¶ 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 4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from GBS, AIDP, CIDP, or any other injury, or her current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. See 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be redacted 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). Case 1:21-vv-01402-UNJ Document 44 Filed 05/02/23 Page 2 of 6 Nevertheless, on April 6, 2023, 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 $130,000.00 in the form of a check payable 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner 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-01402-UNJ Document 44 Filed 05/02/23 Page 3 of 6 Case 1:21-vv-01402-UNJ Document 44 Filed 05/02/23 Page 4 of 6 Case 1:21-vv-01402-UNJ Document 44 Filed 05/02/23 Page 5 of 6 Case 1:21-vv-01402-UNJ Document 44 Filed 05/02/23 Page 6 of 6 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01402-cl-extra-10734334 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-04 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267744 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1402V Filed: June 27, 2024 GEETA KARRA, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner. Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On May 26, 2021, 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 alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”), acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“AIDP”), and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on December 30, 2019. Petition at 1. On April 6, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF Nos. 39- 40.) On October 5, 2023, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 45.) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 30,547.00 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $430.92. Fees App. at 4. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of 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). this litigation. Fees App. Ex. C at 1. Thus, the total amount requested is $30,977.92. On October 17, 2023, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 46.) Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 requires respondent to file a response to a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully requests that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. at 1347-48. 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. 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 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.”). 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, however, 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)). Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 894-95. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id. 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 (Fed. Cl. 2009). When determining the relevant fee reduction, special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioners’ fee application. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Instead, they may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program to determine the 2 reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991), rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests . . . Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. a. Hourly Rates Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for her attorneys at Anapol Weiss: for Ms. Emily B. Ashe, $310.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $330.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $350.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $370.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Mr. Gregory S. Spizer, $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2020; and for Ms. Miriam Barish, $380.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $380.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2023. Additionally, petitioner requests compensation for law clerks at a rate of $125.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $138.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $150.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, and $165.00 per hour for work performed in 2022-2023. Additionally, petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for paralegals Christina Negrey, Kiersten McConagle, and Kelly Drake: $125.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $125.00-$130.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $130.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $135.00 per hour for work performed in 2023. These rates are consistent with what counsel have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and I find them to be reasonable herein. b. Hours Expended Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Upon review, the overall number of hours billed appears to be reasonable. I have reviewed the billing entries and find that they adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. I do not find any of the entries to be objectionable, nor has respondent identified any as such. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of $30,547.00. c. Attorneys’ Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a total of $430.92 in attorneys’ costs comprised of acquiring 3 medical records, the Court’s filing fee, postage, and medical literature. Fees App. Ex. B at 1. These costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought. II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), I have reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. I find it reasonable to compensate petitioner and her counsel as follows: a lump sum in the amount of $30,977.92, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Anapol Weiss. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 4