VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01911 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01911 Petitioner: Suzanne Meeley Filed: 2025-02-28 Decided: 2025-04-01 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2021-09-16 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 60000 AI-assisted case summary: Suzanne Meeley filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccination received on September 16, 2021. The respondent conceded that her injury was consistent with SIRVA, noting that she had no prior history of shoulder issues, pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, the pain was limited to the injection site, and no other condition explained the pain. The respondent also agreed that she suffered residual effects for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, the court found Suzanne Meeley entitled to compensation. A decision awarding damages followed, granting her a lump sum payment of $60,000.00 for past pain and suffering. This amount represents compensation for all damages available under the program. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01911-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-01 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/28/2025) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01911-UNJ Document 42 Filed 04/01/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1911V SUZANNE MEELEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 28, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 28, 2022, Suzanne Meeley 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on September 16, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On February 28, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On February 13, 2025, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report Recommending Compensation and Proffer of Compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 for past pain and suffering. Proffer at 4. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. 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 1:22-vv-01911-UNJ Document 42 Filed 04/01/25 Page 2 of 2 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 $60,000.00 (for past pain and suffering) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01911-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-01 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/28/2025) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01911-UNJ Document 43 Filed 04/01/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1911V SUZANNE MEELEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 28, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On December 28, 2022, Suzanne Meeley 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on September 16, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 26, 29-30. 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 1:22-vv-01911-UNJ Document 43 Filed 04/01/25 Page 2 of 2 On February 13, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report Recommending Compensation and Proffer of Compensation in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. ECF No. 33 at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that DICP [Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services] has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and has concluded that compensation is appropriate. DICP has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight 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 petitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Id. at 4. 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_22-vv-01911-cl-extra-10837247 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-01 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10370659 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1911V SUZANNE MEELEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 28, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On December 28, 2022, Suzanne Meeley 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on September 16, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 26, 29-30. 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). On February 13, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report Recommending Compensation and Proffer of Compensation in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. ECF No. 33 at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that DICP [Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services] has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and has concluded that compensation is appropriate. DICP has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight 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 petitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Id. at 4. 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 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01911-cl-extra-11129874 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-29 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10663287 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1911V SUZANNE MEELEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 29, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On December 28, 2022, Suzanne Meeley 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as the result of an influenza vaccination received on September 16, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On February 28, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 36. 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 $24,494.43 (representing $23,069.20 in fees plus $1,425.23 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed March 14, 2025. ECF No. 40. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 40 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on March 18, 2025, reporting 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 2-4, ECF No. 41. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The hourly rates requested by attorney Jonathan Svitak, Patrick Anderson and supporting paralegals are reasonable and consistent with prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. The hourly rates requested by Nathan Marchese, however, require adjustment. Mr. Marchese was previously awarded lesser rates than requested herein ($390.00 for his time billed in 2023 and $410.00 for his time billed in 2024). See Wood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-0130, Slip Op. 39 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 25, 2025). I find no reason to deviate from that determination and it otherwise is not the practice of OSM to adjust prior rate determinations upward in later cases. See Jefferson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1882V, 2023 WL 387051 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2023). Accordingly, I reduce attorney Marchese’s rates to be consistent with Wood. Application of the foregoing reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $72.00. 3 Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 40-4. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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 attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $24,422.43 (representing $22,997.20 in fees plus $1,425.23 in 3 This amount consists of reducing Nathan Marchese’s rates for years 2023-24 and is calculated as follows: ($450.00 - $390.00 = $60.00 x 1.00 hours billed) + ($450.00 - $410.00 = $40.00 x 0.30 hours billed) = $72.00. 2 costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 3