VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01446 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01446 Petitioner: Gary Templin Filed: 2021-03-18 Decided: 2024-04-18 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-10-07 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 40000 AI-assisted case summary: Gary Templin filed a petition alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccination on October 7, 2020. The case proceeded as a Table claim, with Petitioner arguing entitlement under specific provisions of the Vaccine Injury Table for SIRVA and seeking $50,000 for pain and suffering. Respondent contested that the Table elements were met, specifically questioning the onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination, but recommended an award of $35,000 if entitlement was found. After a hearing, the Chief Special Master found that Petitioner had established entitlement to compensation, including the onset of pain within 48 hours and other SIRVA Table requirements, as well as the additional requirements for residual effects lasting six months. The court awarded Gary Templin a lump sum of $40,000 for pain and suffering, representing compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01446-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-04-18 Pages: 3 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING and DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES (Originally filed: 03/18/2024) regarding 34 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION of Special Master, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01446-UNJ Document 40 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 3 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1446V GARY TEMPLIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 18, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On June 7, 2021, Gary Templin 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 he suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on October 7, 2020. 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 has established a Table case, and 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 1:21-vv-01446-UNJ Document 40 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 3 setting forth their respective arguments on damages should I find entitlement in favor of Petitioner. ECF No. 29. The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on March 15, 2024. Petitioner argues he has established a Table claim for SIRVA pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10) and seeks an award of $50,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering. ECF No. 30. Respondent disputes that the Table elements have been met, arguing that Petitioner has failed to establish that he suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination pursuant C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)(ii). ECF No. 31. Otherwise, if I find that Petitioner has established a Table case, Respondent recommends an award of $35,000.00. Id. 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. In another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standards to be considered in determining entitlement and damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein my prior discussion in Sections V - VII of Crawford v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0544V, 2024 WL 1045147, at *12-22 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2024) 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 resolution of this matter. 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 establish that he suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of his vaccination, and that all other SIRVA Table requirements pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10) were satisfied. 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 damages for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.3 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)). 2 Case 1:21-vv-01446-UNJ Document 40 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 3 Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $40,000.00 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 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_21-vv-01446-cl-extra-10772085 Date issued/filed: 2024-12-30 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10305497 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1446V GARY TEMPLIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: November 22, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On June 7, 2021, Gary Templin 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 he suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on October 7, 2020. Petition at 1. On March 18, 2024, I issued a decision determining entitlement and awarding damages to Petitioner, following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 34. Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $17,057.70 (representing $16,236.90 for fees and $820.80 for costs). Petitioner’s 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). Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed May 13, 2024, ECF No. 41. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of- pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on June 28, 2024, indicating 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. 45. Petitioner has not filed a reply. The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. I also note this case required additional briefing regarding the issues of entitlement and damages. See Status Report, filed April 10, 2023, ECF No. 27 (reporting an impasse in settlement discussions); Petitioner’s Joint Motion for a Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement & Damages, filed July 20, 2023, ECF No. 30; Hearing Minute entry dated March 18, 2024 (regarding proceedings on Mar. 15, 2024). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 12.0 hours drafting the motion regarding entitlement and damages, and 0.4 hours reviewing Respondent’s response. ECF No. 41 at 11-12. I find this time to have been reasonably incurred. (And all time billed to the matter was also reasonably incurred.) Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs, ECF No. 41 at 15-26. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable. The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). I award a total of $17,057.70 (representing $16,236.90 for fees and $820.80 for costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Leigh Finfer. In the absenc e 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 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. 2