VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02090 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02090 Petitioner: Craig Davis Filed: 2021-10-27 Decided: 2024-11-08 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-09-21 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 68982 AI-assisted case summary: Craig Davis filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on September 21, 2020. He stated that his symptoms lasted for more than six months and that no prior action or compensation had been received for this injury. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Mr. Davis was entitled to compensation. The respondent determined that the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, noting that Mr. Davis had no prior shoulder issues, the pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, was limited to the injection site shoulder, and no other condition explained the pain. The respondent also agreed that the residual effects lasted longer than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, entitlement to compensation was granted. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued. The respondent proffered an award of $68,982.08, which included $67,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,482.08 for past unreimbursable expenses. Mr. Davis agreed with this proffered award. The court awarded the lump sum payment of $68,982.08 to Craig Davis. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02090-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-04-03 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/01/2024) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02090-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2090V CRAIG DAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 1, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 27, 2021, Craig Davis 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received on September 21, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered within the United States, his symptoms lasted for a period longer than six months, and neither he, nor any other party, has ever filed any action, or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 5. 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:21-vv-02090-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 2 On February 5, 2024, 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. Respondent concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Respondent determined that “[P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain [P]etitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months. Id. 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-02090-cl-extra-10735761 Date issued/filed: 2024-04-03 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269171 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2090V CRAIG DAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 1, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 27, 2021, Craig Davis 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received on September 21, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered within the United States, his symptoms lasted for a period longer than six months, and neither he, nor any other party, has ever filed any action, or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 5. 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On February 5, 2024, 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. Respondent concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Respondent determined that “[P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain [P]etitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months. Id. 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02090-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-11-08 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/08/2024) regarding 44 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02090-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2090V CRAIG DAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 8, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 27, 2021, Craig Davis 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received on September 21, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On March 1, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. On October 8, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $68,982.08, representing $67,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,482.08 for past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees 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-02090-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 5 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 Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $68,982.08, representing $67,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,482.08 for actual 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.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-02090-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) CRAIG DAVIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 21-2090V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 27, 2021, Craig Davis (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza vaccine he received on September 21, 2020. Petition at 1. On February 5, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on March 1, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 31; ECF No. 33. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $67,500.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. Case 1:21-vv-02090-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 5 B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,482.08. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $68,982.08, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Craig Davis: $68,982.08 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C.SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:21-vv-02090-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/08/24 Page 5 of 5 VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR. Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ Michael J. Lang MICHAEL J. LANG Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 880-0239 Email: Michael.Lang3@usdoj.gov Dated: October 8, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02090-cl-extra-11099107 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10632520 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2090V CRAIG DAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 13, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 27, 2021, Craig Davis 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from an influenza vaccination he received on September 21, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 8, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 44. 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 $31,455.79 (representing $30,489.70 in fees plus $966.09 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed October 29, 2024, ECF No. 48. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on November 4, 2024, 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 2-3, ECF No. 49. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a minor reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons listed 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 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 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES The hourly rates requested for attorneys Jonathan Svitak, Elizabeth Hess, and their associated paralegals are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted herein. For Suzanne Littell, Petitioner requests the hourly rate of $491.00 for her time billed in the 2021-24 timeframe. However, this rate requires further evaluation. Ms. Littell filed an affidavit indicating that she was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1996 and admitted to this Court in 2021 (ECF No. 48-5), placing her in the rage of attorneys with 20-30 years’ experience based on the OSM Attorneys’ Fee Schedules. 3 Ms. Littell also indicated that she worked on Vaccine Table cases during her four-month tenure with Shannon Law Group, between August 2021 – December 2021. Id. at 48-5. Her proposed rate falls within OSM’s Fee Schedules relevant to Ms. Littell’s level of experience, albeit on the higher end of the Fee Schedule ranges – despite her lack of significant experience representing Petitioners in the Vaccine Program. But prior experience with Program cases is relevant to what hourly rate an attorney should receive. See McCulloch v. Health and Human Services, No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) (stating the following factors are paramount in deciding a reasonable forum hourly rate: experience in the Vaccine Program, overall legal experience, the quality of work performed, and the reputation in the legal community and community at large). It is therefore improper for Ms. Littell to receive rates on the higher end of the experience ranges, when those rates are established for comparably experienced counsel who also have lengthy experience representing Petitioners in the Program. Accordingly, based on my experience applying the factors relevant to determining proper hourly rates for Program attorneys, I find it reasonable to award Ms. Littell the lower rate of $440.00 for her time billed in 2021-24 timeframe. This results in a reduction of attorney’s fees to be awarded of $224.40. 4 Ms. Littell will be entitled to rate increases 3 Vaccine Program’s Attorney’s Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules are available on the U.S. Court of Federal Claim’s website: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-rate-f ee-schedules 4 This amount consists of ($491.00 - $440.00 = $51.00 x 4.40 hrs.) = $224.40. 3 in the future, however, as she demonstrates more experience representing Petitioners in the Vaccine Program. Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 48-4. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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. I award a total of $31,231.39 (representing $30,265.30 in fees plus $966.09 in 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. 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 f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4