VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02111 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02111 Petitioner: Luz Aurora Vargas de Echavarria Filed: 2021-10-29 Decided: 2023-06-14 Vaccine: influenza (flu) Vaccination date: 2020-10-23 Condition: Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 150000 AI-assisted case summary: Luz Aurora Vargas de Echavarria filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 23, 2020. The petition stated that the vaccination occurred in the United States, her GBS led to hospitalization and surgery, and the condition persisted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Ms. Vargas de Echavarria is entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that her case met the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, thus establishing a presumption of vaccine causation. The respondent also confirmed that the case was timely filed, the vaccine was administered in the U.S., and the statutory severity requirement was met due to the injury's duration. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, the court found Ms. Vargas de Echavarria entitled to compensation. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued. The respondent proffered an award of $150,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, which Ms. Vargas de Echavarria accepted. The court awarded this lump sum payment, 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-02111-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-17 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/14/2023) regarding 34 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02111-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2111V UNPUBLISHED LUZ AURORA VARGAS DE Chief Special Master Corcoran ECHAVARRIA, Filed: June 14, 2023 Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; HUMAN SERVICES, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent. Paul Adrian Green, Law Office of Paul Green, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 29, 2021, Luz Aurora Vargas de Echavarria 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 Barre Syndrome (GBS) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination received on October 23, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccination was administered within the United States, her GBS resulted in a hospital admission, surgery, and persisted for more than six months, and neither she, nor any other party, has ever filed any action or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for 1 Because this Order 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 Order 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-02111-UNJ Document 38 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2 Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 13, 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, it is Respondent’s position that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (‘QAI’) . . . . Therefore, [P]etitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation. Id. at 4 (citation omitted). Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner timely filed her case, that she received the flu vaccine in the United States, and that she satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” 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-02111-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-17 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/14/2023) regarding 35 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02111-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2111V UNPUBLISHED LUZ AURORA VARGAS DE Chief Special Master Corcoran ECHAVARRIA, Filed: June 14, 2023 Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Damages Decision Based on Proffer; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain- HUMAN SERVICES, Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent. Paul Adrian Green, Law Office of Paul Green, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 29, 2021, Luz Aurora Vargas de Echavarria 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 Barre Syndrome (GBS) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination received on October 23, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 13, 2023, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) report and proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”). On June 14, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. In the Proffer, Respondent indicated that Petitioner should be awarded $150,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. 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-02111-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2 Proffer at 5. Also in the Proffer, 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 Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $150,000.00 for actual pain and suffering 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 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02111-cl-extra-10736721 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-15 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2111V LUZ AURORA VARGAS DE ECHAVARRIA Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: November 13, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul Adrian Green, Law Office of Paul Green, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 29, 2021, Luz Aurora Vargas de Echavarria 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 resulting from adverse effects of an influenza vaccine received on October 23, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 14, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 35. 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 $16,635.70 (representing $16,142.00 in fees and $493.70 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs filed Aug. 24, 2023, ECF No. 41. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of- pocket expenses. Id. at 3. Respondent reacted to the motion on Aug. 25, 2023, reporting 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, ECF No. 42. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a 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. 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. Petitioner requests compensation for attorney Paul Green at the following rates: $430 per hour for time billed in 2021; $440 per hour for time billed in 2022; and $450 per hour for time billed in 2023. ECF No. 41 at 2. Some of these rates require adjustment. Attorney Green was previously awarded the rate of $420 per hour for time billed in 2021, less than what is being requested herein. See Silva v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1887V, Slip Op. 61, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 21, 2022). I agree with the reasoning from this earlier decision and reduce Mr. Green’s rate to be consistent with Silva. This results in a reduction of fees to be awarded of $155.00. 3 The requested hourly rates for the 2022-23 timeframe, however, are reasonable and shall be awarded herein. Lastly, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. Motion at 33-42. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. 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 $16,480.70 (representing $15,987.00 in fees and $493.70 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Paul A Green. 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 3 This amount is calculated as: ($430 - $420 = $10 x 15.50) = $155.00 4 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. 3