VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02088 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02088 Petitioner: Sandra Wood Filed: 2021-10-27 Decided: 2023-07-14 Vaccine: influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis Vaccination date: 2020-10-28 Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), specifically the Miller-Fisher variant Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 177076 AI-assisted case summary: Sandra Wood filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), specifically the Miller-Fisher variant, causally related to an adverse reaction to the influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines she received on October 28, 2020. The respondent conceded that Ms. Wood is entitled to compensation, agreeing that her condition is a defined Table injury and that she met all legal prerequisites for compensation. A ruling on entitlement was issued on June 7, 2023. Subsequently, on July 14, 2023, a decision awarding damages was issued. The respondent proffered an award of $177,076.94, which included $170,000.00 for pain and suffering, $4,940.14 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $2,136.80 for future unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Wood agreed with this proffered award, and the court granted the lump sum payment. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02088-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-11 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/07/2023) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02088-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2088V UNPUBLISHED SANDRA WOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 7, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement;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. Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 27, 2021, Sandra Wood 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-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), specifically the Miller-Fisher variant, a defined Table injury, causally related to an adverse reaction to the influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines she received on October 28, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 38. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccinations with the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her GBS for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her GBS illness. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 39, 42-43. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this 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 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-02088-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 2 On June 2, 2023, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 1, ECF No. 32. Specifically, Respondent believes that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI).” Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees that “based on the current record, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 3. 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-02088-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-14 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/07/2023) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02088-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2088V UNPUBLISHED SANDRA WOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 7, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer; HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccines; Respondent. Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 27, 2021 Sandra Wood (“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-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), specifically the Miller-Fisher variant, a defined Table injury, causally related to an adverse reaction to the influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines she received on October 28, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 38. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 7, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her GBS. In this case, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on award of compensation (“Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $177,076.94, representing $170,000.00 for actual and 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-02088-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2 projected pain and suffering, $4,940.14 for past unreimbursed expenses, and $2,136.80 for future unreimbursable expenses.3 Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 3. Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer,4 I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $177,076.94, representing $170,000.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering, $4,940.14 for actual unreimbursable expenses, and $2,136.80 for projected unreimbursable expenses 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.5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 The combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer did not specify the damages categories for any subtotals comprising this amount. 4 Because the Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer contains detailed medical information, it will not be filed as an attachment to this Decision. 5 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 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02088-cl-extra-10735973 Date issued/filed: 2024-03-08 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269383 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2088V SANDRA WOOD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: February 7, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 27, 2021, Sandra Wood 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-Barré syndrome (the Miller- Fisher variant), a defined Table injury, causally related to an adverse reaction to the influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines she received on October 28, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 7, 2023 (less than two years after the claim’s initiation), I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 34. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $94,428.95 (representing $92,191.80 in fees plus $2,237.15 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed Aug. 4, 2023, ECF No. 40. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 40-4. Respondent did not file a response to Petitioner’s Motion thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons stated below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to 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 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. 2 ATTORNEY FEES The hourly rates requested for the attorneys and paralegals who performed work in this matter are consistent with prior determinations, and will therefore be awarded herein. However, the magnitude of the fees sought in this matter is facially high, especially compared to SPU cases generally. Because Petitioner succeeded in this matter, her entitlement to fees cannot be disputed – but the fees incurred must still be reasonable. The specific circumstances of this case, and the severe nature of the injury at issue, may explain why the fees requested are larger than usual. And the total amount received by Petitioner was significant as well – this is not a matter in which there is a disparity between the claimant’s award and fees to be paid. But it remains the case that the sum requested seems excessive for a matter that was resolved within two years, and without a trial. A. Excessive Billing A significant factor contributing to the high cost of fees in this case appears to be excessive or redundant billing. Special masters have previously reduced fees for work attributable to excessive and duplicative billing. See Ericzon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by ten percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-65V, 2016 WL 7212323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 2, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by 20 percent), mot. for rev. denied, 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (2016). The billing records establish that thirteen paralegals worked on the matter, billing a total of 143.70 hours to this case. See ECF No. 40-2 at 36. The majority of this work consisted of researching the processing procedures to request various medical records; drafting requests for medical records; multiple paralegals communicating with the same medical facilities; and multiple paralegals analyzing the same medical records, suggesting some degree of unnecessary overlap/inefficiency compounding the excessive billing associated with these tasks. The following are non-exhaustive examples of excessive billing by paralegals in this matter. For example, Lindsay Walkinson billed 0.80 hours to review correspondenc e from medical facilities regarding the disbursement of requested records. See ECF NO. 40-2 at 3. Kimberly Dutra billed 1.10 hours to review inter-office notes regarding the 3 progress of or issues with medical records requests. Id. at 3-6. Ms. Dutra billed 0.30 hours to analyze medical records from Bayfront Health St. Petersburg and her colleague Lindsay Walkinson also billed 0.50 hours to review the same medical records. Id. at 5. In addition, Ms. Walkinson billed 2.40 hours for drafting correspondence to, reviewing records from, and engaging in conferences with Bayfront Health St. Petersburg while two other paralegals billed for similar tasks associated with the same facility (Amy Semanie 1.30 hours and Chelsea Harris 1.00 hour). ECF No. 40-2 at 2-23. Ms. Walkinson also billed 4.10 hours for drafting correspondence to, reviewing records from, and engaging in conferences with St. Anthony’s Neurology Group while other paralegals billed for similar tasks associated with the same facility (Amy Samanie 3.60 hours; Chelsea Harris 5.20 hours; Mackenzie Riordan 1.60; and Tara Thorn 0.90 hours). Id. 2-33. Special masters have previously noted the inefficiency that results when cases are staffed by multiple individuals and have reduced fees accordingly. See Sabella, 86 Fed. Cl. at 209. For the reasons heretofore mentioned, I find it necessary to reduce the total amount billed by paralegals (a total of 143.70 hours, or $23,977.00) 3 by fifteen percent. This results in a reduction in the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded of $3,596.55. 4 B. Paralegal Tasks Billed at Attorney Rates There are several instances evident from the billing invoices in which tasks that are considered paralegal in nature were billed at the attorney’s hourly rate in this matter. Attorneys may be compensated for paralegal-level work, but only at a rate that is comparable to that of a paralegal. See, e.g. Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. XX-XXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010) (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989)); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016); Riggins. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *20-21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009); Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-535, 2008 WL 5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008). 3 This amount consists of: ($155 x 8.8 hrs = $1,364.00) + ($160 x 35.30 hrs = $5,648.00) + ($165 x 45 hrs = $7,425.00) + ($170 x 28.80 hrs = $4,896.00) + ($180 x 25.80 hrs = $4,644.00) = $23,977.00 4 This amount is calculated as: ($23,977.00 x .30) = $3,596.55 4 Review of the billing records demonstrate that attorney Alison Haskins billed 3.40 hours on tasks considered paralegal in nature. 5 See ECF No. 40-2. Although these billing entries are reimbursable, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Accordingly, I reduce Ms. Haskins hourly rate for all tasks considered paralegal in nature to a rate of $160 per hour. This further reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $992.80. 6 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $2,237.15 in overall costs. ECF No. 40-3. Such costs are associated with obtaining medical records, postage fees and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of them to be reasonable, with the exception of $105.37 in requested costs that have not been substantiated by any supporting documentation, such as an invoice or proof of payment. 7 Id. at 2-3. When Petitioners fail to provide appropriate documentation to substantiate a requested cost, special masters have refrained from awarding the relevant sum. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005). Thus, I disallow such costs reducing the total amount of litigation costs to be awarded by $105.37. 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 $89,734.23 (representing $87,602.45 in fees plus $2,131.78 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. Per Petitioner’s request, the check is to be forwarded to Maglio, Christopher and Toale Law, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota Florida 34236. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix 5 Examples of such billing entries are as follows: 3.40 hours billed by attorney Alison Haskins on 9/24/21; 10/18/21; 10/25/21; 11/8/21 (three entries); 12/9/21; 12/27/21; 2/14/22; 10/3/22; 10/4/22; 10/14/22; 4/6/23; 6/26/23. Id. 6 This amount consists of: ($440 - $160 = $280 x 2 hrs = $560) + ($460 - $160 = $300 x 1 hrs. = $300) + ($492 - $160 = $332 x 0.40 hrs = $132.80) = $992.80 7 Examples of the unsubstantiated costs: 7/6/21; 9/2/21; 11/3/21; 6/20/23; 6/30/23. See ECF No. 40-3 at 2- 3. 5 B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 8 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. 6