VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01512 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01512 Petitioner: Rochelle Platt Filed: 2021-06-24 Decided: 2025-07-01 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-10-23 Condition: left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 5000 AI-assisted case summary: On June 24, 2021, Rochelle Platt filed a petition alleging a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration after an influenza vaccination on October 23, 2020. She alleged residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied that Ms. Platt sustained a SIRVA Table injury and denied that the vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury. The public compensation decision is a stipulation decision and does not include a detailed treatment chronology, onset analysis, or expert discussion. On July 1, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation resolving the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and awarded Ms. Platt $5,000.00 as a lump sum, payable through counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. A later March 3, 2026 decision awarded attorney's fees and costs; that later fee decision did not change the $5,000.00 injury-compensation award. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine on October 23, 2020, allegedly causing left-sided SIRVA; COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied Table SIRVA and denied vaccine causation. Public decision has limited medical facts. Award $5,000 lump sum for all section 15(a) damages, payable via counsel IOLTA. Later attorney-fee award separated from injury compensation. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran, petition filed June 24, 2021; decision July 1, 2025. Attorney: Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis TN. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01512-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-04 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/01/2025) regarding 61 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1512V ROCHELLE PLATT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 1, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for Petitioner. Joseph Douglas Leavitt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On June 24, 2021, Rochelle Platt filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On October 23, 2020, Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which vaccine is listed in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her vaccination. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. 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-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 7 Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury and denies that the vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury. Nevertheless, on July 1, 2025, 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 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 $5,000.00 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.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-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury and denies that the vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, or any other 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 eight 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 pursuantto 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2l(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum payment of $5,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner's counsel's I OL TA 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. § 30 0aa-21 (a)( I), 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 her attorney represent that the compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under42 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, 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. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01512-UNJ Document 65 Filed 08/04/25 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01512-cl-extra-11306195 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-06 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10838852 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1512V ROCHELLE PLATT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 3, 2026 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for Petitioner. Joseph Douglas Leavitt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On June 24, 2021, Rochelle Platt 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine she received on October 23, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On July 1, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 61. 1Because 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 $79,348.72 (representing $51,183.39 in fees and costs incurred by Petitioner’s counsel of record: Michael G. McLaren, plus $28,165.33 in fees and costs incurred by Petitioner’s former counsel: Ronald Craig Homer). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 2, 2025, ECF No. 66. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 66-3 at 1. Respondent reacted to the motion on September 8, 2025, 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. 67. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with the Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set forth 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 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 I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s fees request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein. I also find no grounds for reducing hours billed to the matter in this action, which was successful. ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner’s current counsel, Michael McLaren, has requested a total of $3,529.49 in litigation costs and has provided supporting documentation to substantiate most of the costs. No. 66-2 at 17-44. Such costs are associated with obtaining medical records, postage costs, and travel expenses. I have reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of them to be reasonable - with the exception of certain travel expenses incurred by attorney Chris Webb. Like attorney’s fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). The billing records reveal that attorney Webb traveled from Memphis, Tennessee, to West Palm Beach, Florida, on November 1, 2023, for an in-person meeting with Petitioner. Mr. Webb stayed for two nights in Florida at the West Palm Beach Marriott, a luxury hotel. ECF No. 66-2 at 27. Petitioner requests reimbursement of $852.59 for the two-night stay, including meals charged to the room. It appears the nightly room charge at the West Palm Beach Marriott was $309.00 on November 1, 2023, and $358.00 on November 2, 2023, not including sales and city taxes. This amount exceeds the federal government’s daily lodging rates for a hotel stay in West Palm Beach, Florida, which was most recently $161.00 per night in November 2023. 3 In addition, the federal government’s total Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) amount for one day in November 2023 was $69.00, which included breakfast, lunch, 3 See GSA FY 2023-2024 Per Diem Rates for West Palm Beach, Florida at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates. 3 dinner, and incidental expenses. The receipts submitted hereto reflect that Mr. Webb spent $100.00 for dinner alone on November 2, 2023. This amount exceeds the M&IE amount listed above. The receipt counsel provided for Ruth’s Chris is the terminal receipt (with the only relevant information being the date and the total), not the itemized receipt detailing what Mr. Webb purchased. ECF No. 66-2 at 26. Additionally, the meals charged to the room at the West Palm Beach Marriott have no corresponding itemized receipts, other than the charges appearing on the hotel invoice. Complete, itemized receipts are necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of an expense. While travel costs related to the Vaccine Claim are generally compensable, excessive costs claimed for upgraded methods of transportation, meal expenses in excess of what would be reasonable, and luxury hotels are not. Accordingly, I find the amount claimed for the luxury hotel stay and meals to be excessive and hereby apply a reduction of fifty percent to the total amount of travel expenses as a fair adjustment to account for these issues. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of costs to be awarded to attorney Michael McLaren by $542.24. 4 Petitioner’s former counsel of record, Ronald Homer, has provided strong supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 66-4 at 24-36. 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 attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $78,806.48 as follows: A lump sum of $50,641.15, representing reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel of record: Michael G. McLaren’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement; and A lump sum of $28,165.33, representing reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s former counsel: Ronald Craig Homer’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 4 $1,084.48 x .50 = $542.24. 4 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 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 5