VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02084 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02084 Petitioner: Chester Tennyson Filed: 2021-10-27 Decided: 2024-08-09 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-11-02 Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 110358 AI-assisted case summary: Chester Tennyson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 2, 2018. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded that Mr. Tennyson was entitled to compensation, stating that his condition met the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on March 23, 2023, confirming his eligibility for compensation. As the parties could not resolve damages informally, a hearing was held on June 28, 2024. Mr. Tennyson requested $150,000 for pain and suffering and $358.10 for medical expenses. The respondent recommended $72,500 for pain and suffering but agreed to the medical expenses. The court awarded Mr. Tennyson $110,000 for pain and suffering and $358.10 for unreimbursable medical expenses, totaling $110,358.10, to be paid as a lump sum. This award covers 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-02084-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-04-24 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/23/2023) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02084-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2084V UNPUBLISHED CHESTER TENNYSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 23, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 27, 2021, Chester Tennyson 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 he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered to him on November 2, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On March 21, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[P]etitioner suffered from GBS, and . . . has 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-02084-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 2 satisfied the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 5. 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-02084-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-09 Pages: 3 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/03/2024) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02084-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 3 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2084V CHESTER TENNYSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 3, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 27, 2021, Chester Tennyson 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 he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered to him on November 2, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On March 21, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF No. 34. On March 23, 2023, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, which held Petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 35. Because the parties could not informally resolve the issue of damages, they were ordered 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 (2012). Case 1:21-vv-02084-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/09/24 Page 2 of 3 to file briefs setting forth their respective arguments and were notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on June 28, 2024. Petitioner requested an award of $150,000.00 in compensation for pain and suffering, and $358.10 for medical expenses. Respondent recommended an award of $72,500.00 for pain and suffering but agreed to the proposed expenses sum. After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the June 28, 2024 hearing. 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 ruling I discussed at length the legal standard to be considered in determining damages in cases involving GBS as the injury. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion of the legal standard and statistical data for such cases from Grant v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1262V, 2023 WL 6214589, at *4-6, n.6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2023). The official recording of my oral ruling also includes my discussion of various comparable cases, as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my decision awarding damages herein. 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 $110,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering, plus $358.10 for unreimbursable medical expenses.3 I award this amount as a lump sum payment, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner in the amount of $110,358.10. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). 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-02084-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/09/24 Page 3 of 3 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02084-cl-extra-11101771 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-17 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10635184 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2084V CHESTER TENNYSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 16, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On October 27, 2021, Chester Tennyson 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 he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccine that was administered to him on November 2, 2018. Petition at 1. On July 3, 2024, I issued a decision awarding damages following briefing and Expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 48. 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 $34,584.38 (representing $33,325.90 for attorney’s fees and $1,258.48 for attorney costs). Petitioner Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed Mar. 10, 2025, ECF No. 56. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that he incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 57. Respondent reacted to the motion the same day, on March 10, 2025, representing 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. 58. Petitioner filed no reply. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason set forth 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees 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 2 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 The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding damages. See Petitioner’s Memorandum in Support of Damages, filed June 23, 2023, ECF No. 41; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on Damages, filed Sept. 1, 2023, ECF No. 43; Minute Entry, dated July 2, 2024 (for June 28, 2024 expedited hearing). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 8.9 hours drafting the brief and 7.8 hours drafting the responsive damages brief, for a combined total of 16.7 hours. ECF No. 56 at 16-17. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s fees requested. However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for the review of status reports and other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 56 at 8, 10, 14-15, 17-19.3 I note that it is common practice for Conway, Homer, P.C. to have several attorneys assist over the course of a case. In some instances, such as when preparing substantive documents like the petition, briefs, and settlement demands, it is reasonable to have another set of eyes review that document. See, e.g., ECF No. 67 at 13 (entry dated 12/29/22). However, it is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review routine filings, such as status reports and motions for enlargement of time, when those filings were prepared (and billed for) by another attorney. This is not the first time I or other special masters have noted this particular issue concerning Conway, Homer, P.C. billing practices. See, e.g., Manetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). I will not award attorney’s fees for this redundant work. This results in a reduction of $385.00. 3 These entries are dated as follows: 3/24/22, 5/9/22, 12/17/23, 3/14/23, 4/24/23, 5/28/24, 6/20/24, 7/8/24, 7/29/24, and 11/4/24. 3 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but expenses of $12.50 for copying and $33.57 for postage. ECF No. 56 at 20, 22-40. I will nevertheless allow reimbursement of these unsubstantiated costs. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. ECF No. 58. CONCLUSION 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. I award a total of $34,199.38 (representing $32,940.90 for attorney’s fees and $1,258.48 for attorney’s 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4