VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01483 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01483 Petitioner: Terry Casey Filed: 2022-10-11 Decided: 2024-09-18 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-10 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) or recurring right upper arm abscess Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 40000 AI-assisted case summary: On October 11, 2022, Terry Casey filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 10, 2019 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration or, in the alternative, a recurring right upper arm abscess at the deltoid region. Respondent denied that Ms. Casey sustained a Table SIRVA, denied that the flu vaccine caused either the alleged shoulder injury or upper-arm abscess, and denied that her current condition was vaccine-related. The public stipulation does not describe the onset narrative, abscess treatment, imaging, therapy, injections, or residual limitations. On September 18, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the parties' stipulation and awarded $40,000.00 as a lump sum payable to Ms. Casey. A later fee decision concerned attorneys' fees and costs only. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine October 10, 2019 allegedly causing SIRVA or recurring right upper-arm abscess; adult, exact age not stated. COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied Table SIRVA, causation, and sequelae; public stipulation lacks clinical details. Award $40,000. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition October 11, 2022; decision September 18, 2024. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01483-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-21 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/18/2024) regarding 47 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1483V TERRY CASEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 18, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Richard Christian Macke, R. Christian Macke, Newport, KY, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On October 11, 2022, Terry Casey 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) or, in the alternative, a recurring right upper arm abscess, resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 10, 2019. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filedSeptember 18, 2024,at ¶¶ 2-4.Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she has experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever filed any action or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine- related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 30-32; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, recurring right upper arm abscess, or any other injury; denies that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months; and 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. 2National 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 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 7 denies that petitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on September 18, 2024, 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 $40,000.00 in the form of a check payable 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 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 3 of 7 IN THE U~ITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS TERRY CASEY, Petitioner, No. 22-1483V Chief Special Master Corcoran V. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: I. Terry Casey ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly rdated to petitioner's receipt of an inf1uenza ("flu") vaccine. which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"). 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 10, 20 l 9. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder i11ju1y related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table. In the alternative, petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a recutTing righi upper amt abscess at the right deltoid site of vaccination that was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine and resulted in muscle necrosis. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged inju1y for more than six months. Case 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 4 of 7 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner's behalf as a result of the alleged injury. 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the t1u vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, recurring right upper arm abscess, or any other injury; denies that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged inju1y for more than six months; and denies that petitioner's CUlTent condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related 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 8 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 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2 I (a)(l ), the Secreta1y of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of $40,000.00 in the fonn of a check payable 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 entiy 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. § 300aa-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. l 0. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not 2 Case 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 5 of 7 primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l S(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 (o ther 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. 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorney's fees and litigation costs, and past unreirnbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 0 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on 3 Case 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 6 of 7 October 10, 2019, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about October 11. 2022, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 22-l483V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry ofj udgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the tenns of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in confonnity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's cunent disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION 4 Case 1:22-vv-01483-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/21/24 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: TERRY ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORJZED REPRESENTATIVE PETITlONE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ~ ~-'p~~J ,ti\.A~-- R. CHRISTIAN MACKE IO West 4th Street Deputy Director Newport, KY 41071 Torts Branch Phone: (859) 261-0012 Civil Division Email: chrismacke@fuse.net U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORJZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: . Jeffrey S Digitally signed by Jeffrey S.Beach·S -S Beach Date: 2024.08.2812:01:32 -04•00· for ~~ CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH DORIAN HURLEY Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Departmt>nt of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Phone: (202)353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov q /I Dated: R'./2.02.4 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01483-cl-extra-10733958 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-21 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267368 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1483V TERRY CASEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 18, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Richard Christian Macke, R. Christian Macke, Newport, KY, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On October 11, 2022, Terry Casey 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) or, in the alternative, a recurring right upper arm abscess, resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 10, 2019. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed September 18, 2024, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she has experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever filed any action or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine- related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 30-32; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, recurring right upper arm abscess, or any other injury; denies that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months; 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). denies that petitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on September 18, 2024, 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 $40,000.00 in the form of a check payable 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 IN THE U~ITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS TERRY CASEY, Petitioner, No. 22-1483V Chief Special Master Corcoran V. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: I . Terry Casey ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly rdated to petitioner's receipt of an inf1uenza ("flu") vaccine. which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"). 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 10, 20 l 9. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder i11ju1y related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table. In the alternative, petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a recutTing righi upper amt abscess at the right deltoid site of vaccination that was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine and resulted in muscle necrosis. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged inju1y for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner's behalf as a result of the alleged injury. 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the t1u vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, recurring right upper arm abscess, or any other injury; denies that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged inju1y for more than six months; and denies that petitioner's CUlTent condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related 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 8 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 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2 I (a)(l ), the Secreta1y of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of $40,000.00 in the fonn of a check payable 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 entiy 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. § 300aa-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. l 0. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not 2 primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l S(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. 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorney's fees and litigation costs, and past unreirnbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 0 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on 3 October 10, 2019, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about October 11. 2022, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 22-l483V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the tenns of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in confonnity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's cunent disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION 4 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: TERRY ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORJZED REPRESENTATIVE PETITlONE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: R. CHRISTIAN MACKE ~ ~-' p~~J ,ti\.A~ - - IO West 4th Street Deputy Director Newport, KY 41071 Torts Branch Phone: (859) 261-0012 Civil Division Email: chrismacke@fuse.net U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORJZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey S. Digitally signed by Jeffrey S.Beach·S Beach -S ~~ Date: 2024.08.2812:01:32 -04•00· for CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH DORIAN HURLEY Director, Division of Injury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Departmt>nt of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington, DC 20044-0146 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Phone: (202)353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov Dated: q/I R'./2.02. 4 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01483-cl-extra-11244023 Date issued/filed: 2026-01-21 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10777425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1483V TERRY CASEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: December 17, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Richard Christian Macke, R. Christian Macke, Newport, KY, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 11, 2022, Terry Casey 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 or, in the alternative, a recurring right upper arm abscess, resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 10, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On September 18, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 47. 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 $103,970.00 in attorney’s fees, consisting of 185.00 hours billed by attorney Richard Macke at the hourly rate of $562.00. Petitioner’s counsel did not submit a request for litigation costs or any evidence that any out-of-pocket expenses were incurred by Petitioner in this matter. See Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed April 22, 2025, ECF No. 51. Respondent reacted to the Motion on May 6, 2025, stating 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. Respondent also noted, however, that he considers the total hours claimed by counsel excessive, and that counsel’s Kentucky location made application of forum rates inappropriate. ECF No. 52 at 2-5. Petitioner filed a reply on May 7, 2025, wherein he adjusted his hourly rate to the lesser amount of $500.00, and reduced his total number of hours billed to 180.70, reflecting an amended request for final attorney’s fees in the total amount of $90,350.00. ECF No. 53. 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 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). 2 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. ATTORNEY FEES A. Hourly Rates Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Richard C. Macke, is requesting the hourly rate of $500.00 for work performed in the 2020-25 timeframe. While lower than what was originally requested, the rate requires further evaluation and adjustment. Mr. Macke practices in Covington, Kentucky and has been licensed since 1992. He was admitted to this Court in 2014. ECF No. 51 at 2. Based on the OSM Fee Schedules, Mr. Macke is eligible for rates in the range of attorneys with 20 - 30 years of experience for work performed in the 2020-22 timeframe, 3 and the range of attorneys with 31+ years of experience for all work performed in subsequent years. I incorporate by reference all of the explanatory notes contained in the Fee Schedules. The rate of $500.00 would therefore exceed his applicable experience ranges based on these schedules for the 2020-22 timeframe. It would also be improper to award a rate on the higher end of the experience ranges, when those rates are reserved for Program attorneys with demonstrated experience handling Vaccine Act matters. In addition, although Mr. Macke has significant experience as a licensed attorney and as part of the Program, this matter appears to be only Counsel’s second case to reach the fees stage. And Mr. Macke has yet to receive established hourly rates for his work in the Program. I note that experience handling Vaccine Act cases is highly relevant to what hourly rates an attorney should receive. See McCulloch v. Sec'y of 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 3 The 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-fee-schedules 3 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). Thus, based on my experience and judgment applying the factors relevant to determining reasonable hourly rates, I hereby award Mr. Macke the following: $400.00 for 2020; $420.00 for 2021; $440.00 for 2022; $460.00 for 2023; $480.00 for 2024; and $500.00 for 2025. These rates represent a more reasonable annual increase and account for his overall experience and quality of work performed. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded herein by $10,072.00. 4 B. Administrative Tasks and Block Billing A review of the billing records reveal several charges for non-compensable work and/or tasks considered administrative in nature, some of which are grouped together with billable tasks, making it difficult to decipher the amount of time spent on each task. 5 In the Vaccine Program, block-billing (billing large amounts of time without sufficient detail as to what tasks were performed, and how much time was expended on each individual task) is clearly disfavored. See Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 399, at *13-14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 17, 2008) (reducing 4 This amount consists of reducing Mr. Macke’s hourly rates f or 2020-24 and is calculated as f ollows: ($500.00 - $400.00 = $100.00 x 12.20 hours billed in 2020) + ($500.00 - $420.00 = $80.00 x 26.80 hours billed in 2021) + ($500.00 - $440.00 = $60.00 x 78.10 hours billed in 2022) + ($500.00 - $460.00 = $40.00 x 38.30 hours billed in 2023) + ($500.00 - $480.00 = $20.00 x 24.50 hours billed in 2024) = $10,072.00 in f ees to be reduced. 5 Tasks considered administrative and thus, non-compensable include faxing documents, filing documents via CM/ECF, bate-stamping exhibits, organizing medical records for f iling, reviewing and/or paying invoices, and researching basic aspects of the Vaccine Program. This is not a comprehensive list of tasks that can be deemed non-compensable in the Program. The f ollowing are examples of administrative work charged by Mr. Macke, some of which are improperly block-billed with attorney or paralegal level work: 6/3/21: “Research regarding threatened removal of SIRVA from table (1.10 hrs.).” 7/6/22: “Lengthy review of entire record on DVDs, identification and generation of hard copies of important pages, prepare affidavit for Terry signature (5.0 hrs.).” 9/12/22: “Initial PAR work up, review updates to VICP rules, including shoulder injury, related to vaccine administration rule, annotate records f or petition and ref erence, detail review, f inalize, review petition (4.0 hrs.).” 9/13/22: “Continue draft PAR work up, identify record events for Petition, review updates to VICP rules, including shoulder injury, detail review, revise petition (3.3 hrs.).” 10/9/22 (four entries): “Telephone calls to pacer and court regarding electronic f iling helpdesk, old registration, not working, new registration pending, unable to access system (2.3 hrs.); Telephone call to Joe Taylor regarding e-f iling without access to Pacer (0.5 hrs.); Telephone conf erence to vaccine administration helpdesk regarding electronic f iling (0.3 hrs.); Review RCFC rules in detail regarding f ormat, service, electronic f iling, tips f or f iling, holidays, extensions of time (1.8 hrs.); Review paper document f iling procedures because pacer is not working (1.0 hrs.).” 10/11/22: “File documents electronically (2.8 hrs.).” See ECF No. 51-1 at 4-10 and ECF No. 53-1 at 4-10. 4 petitioner’s attorneys’ fees for block-billing); see also Jeffries v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 411, at *8 (Fed Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 15, 2006); Plott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 1997 U.S. Claims LEXIS 313, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 23, 1997). Indeed, the Vaccine Program’s Guidelines for Practice state that “[e]ach task should have its own line entry indicating the amount of time spent on that task.” 6 Counsel is admonished that tasks should be billed in increments of one-tenth of an hour since several tasks lumped together in one-time entry frustrates the Court’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the request. Additionally, secretarial or administrative tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs such task. See, e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. It is well established that billing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g., Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (noting that tasks “primarily of a secretarial and clerical nature ... should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.”). See Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016); Bennett v. Dep’t of Navy, 699 F.2d 1140, 1145 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Floyd v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-556V, 2017 WL 1344623, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2017). Likewise, “it is inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program,” and this prohibition includes any cost of bar admission, and any research related thereto. See Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Special Masters have held that “an inexperienced attorney may not ethically bill his client to learn about an area of law in which he is unfamiliar. If an attorney may not bill his client for this task, the attorney may also not bill the Program for this task.” Carter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1500V, 2007 WL 2241877, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 13, 2007). C. Paralegal Tasks Improperly Billed by Attorney I have also identified many tasks considered to be paralegal in nature that were improperly billed at the attorney’s hourly rate. Worse, many of these entries are block- billed with attorney level work, making difficult to decipher the amount of time spent on 6 See Guidelines f or Practice at 76: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program 5 each individual task. 7 Counsel should note that “[t]asks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” See Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *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). Indeed, 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). Accordingly, Counsel must ensure to apply paralegal forum rates based on the fee schedules cited supra, for each year he performs paralegal-level work in Program matters. D. Excessive Charges Besides the above, the fees award must also be reduced due to excessive time expended in review of electronic filing notifications and/or reviewing routine scheduling orders. The invoices show that Mr. Macke billed a total of 12.90 hours on such tasks alone, at the rate of $500.00, and that several of these entries were charged in increments of over eighteen minutes. Many of the scheduling orders issued in this matter were for non-pdf docket entries or otherwise merely one-page in length, however, thus not requiring over 10-minutes of review by Counsel. And I did not include in this calculation hours billed for the review of extensive documents such as the PAR initial order, stipulations or status reports. Special Masters have previously reduced attorney fees for such types of excessive billing. See Ericzon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10- 7 Tasks considered paralegal in nature include draf ting and revising exhibit lists and other routine documents such as PAR questionnaire, notices of f iling exhibits, cover sheets, statements of completion, draf ting requests f or medical records and f ollowing up on medical records requests. The f ollowing billing entries charged by Mr. Macke ref lect paralegal work, some of which are block-billed with attorney level work: 10/6/21: “Telephone conf erence with doctor of fices, staff and billing departments re: record authentication and authorizations f orms (2.2 hrs.).” 10/8/21: “Procure certified copies of medical records, letters to St. Elizabeth, vascular surgeon, St. Elizabeth Family Physicians, Vascular Surgery, St. Elizabeth Hospital, continue working on petition (1.5 hrs.).” 7/27/22: “Draft, revise, f inalize and f ax letters regarding St. Elizabeth Vascular Surgery records (0.5 hrs.).” 7/28/22: “Draft and fax medical records requests for Dr. Durrani, Dr. Eldridge offices, certified record requests (1.2 hrs.).” 7/29/22: “Resend January 7, 2021 letter to Dr. Eldridge regarding timeline (0.3 hrs.).” 9/26/22: “Draf t PAR questionnaire, create chronology with records ref erences, compliant with VICP rules, continue petition (4.0 hrs.).” 10/5/22 (two entries): “Draft letter to Dawn at Saint Elizabeth regarding rush records (0.5 hrs.); Supplement requests for Saint Elizabeth hospital records and certified records…(1.0 hrs.).” 10/7/22: “Prepare exhibits plus cover sheets, including certif ications…(13.00 hrs.).” 10/21/22; 10/28/22; 11/5/22; 11/24/22; 3/2/23; 4/6/23 (two entries); 5/5/23 (two entries); 8/29/23; 9/7/23; 9/8/23; 11/29/23; 3/13/24; 12/2/24. See ECF No. 53-1. 6 103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-654V, 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). Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte, without providing petitioners notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). E. Summary of Fees Reduction Attorneys' fees are awarded for the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. See Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because Petitioner succeeded in this matter, her entitlement to fees cannot be disputed – but the fees incurred must still be reasonable. Here, the overall fees sought are egregiously high, especially compared to SPU cases generally. Indeed, the fees sought exceed Petitioner’s recovery by more than fifty thousand dollars – for a kind of claim that did not pose thorny legal or medical issues. And as discussed above, the billing records reveal a number of exorbitant billing practices compounding the high fees claimed in this matter, and demonstrating Counsel’s inexperience representing Petitioners in the Program. Counsel must in the future ensure not to bill sums to a matter where the disparity between time expended by counsel and the Petitioner’s award is so readily evident. Special Masters have discretion to, “reduce the hours to a number that, in [his] experience and judgment, [are] reasonable for the work done.” Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged, rather than engage in a line-by-line review of the invoices submitted. See Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 728- 29 (2011) (affirming the special master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (affirming the special master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours). In determining reasonable hours, a special master has discretion to exclude hours expended that are “’excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary’” based on his or her experience or judgment.” Hocraffer v. Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011 WL 6292218, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2011). Here, such an overall percentage cut is reasonable given the exorbitant fees claimed and the aforementioned issues. Accordingly, I hereby reduce the total fees to be awarded 7 herein by forty percent as a fair adjustment. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of fees to be awarded herein by an additional $32,111.20. 8 LITIGATION COSTS Petitioner’s counsel did not request reimbursement of any litigation costs and/or out- of-pocket expenses incurred herein. See ECF Nos. 51 and 53. Thus, no evaluation of costs is warranted. 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 $48,166.80 9 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. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 8 This amount is calculated as f ollows: ($90,350.00 - $10,072.00) = $80,278.00 x 0.40% = $32,111.20. Thus, the overall f ees reduction consists of: ($80,278.00 - $32,111.20) = $48,166.80 in total f ees to be awarded herein. 9 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as f ees f or legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991). 10 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. 8