VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01385 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01385 Petitioner: Jeremy Allred Filed: 2023-10-16 Decided: 2024-10-18 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2021-09-21 Condition: right shoulder/ arm pain Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 62500 AI-assisted case summary: Jeremy Allred filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on August 22, 2023, alleging he suffered "right shoulder/ arm pain" as a result of an influenza vaccine received on September 21, 2021. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on October 15, 2024, conceding that Mr. Allred was entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that Mr. Allred's alleged injury was consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, and that Mr. Allred had met all legal prerequisites for compensation. On October 16, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding Mr. Allred entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on October 17, 2024, the respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, stating that Mr. Allred agreed with the proffered award. On October 18, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision on Damages, awarding Mr. Allred a lump sum of $62,500.00 for pain and suffering, payable by check to Mr. Allred. This amount represents all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act for his flu vaccination injury. Petitioner counsel was Renee J. Gentry, and respondent counsel was Mark Kim Hellie. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, or treatments. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Jeremy Allred received an influenza vaccine on September 21, 2021, and subsequently alleged "right shoulder/ arm pain." The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury was consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Petitioner met all legal prerequisites for compensation. The case resulted in a compensated outcome. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on October 16, 2024, and a Decision on Damages on October 18, 2024. The award was a lump sum of $62,500.00 for pain and suffering, representing all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner was represented by Renee J. Gentry, and respondent was represented by Mark Kim Hellie. The public text does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or competing medical theories. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01385-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-11-22 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/16/2024) regarding 29 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 35 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1385V JEREMY ALLRED, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: October 16, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On August 22, 2023, Jeremy Allred 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 from “right shoulder/ arm pain,” as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 21, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On October 15, 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. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 1, 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). Respondent further agrees 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 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 35 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 2 that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5 – 6. 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_23-vv-01385-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-11-22 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/18/2024) regarding 31 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1385V JEREMY ALLRED, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: October 18, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES1 On August 22, 2023, Jeremy Allred 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 from “right shoulder/ arm pain,” as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 21, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On October 16, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On October 17, 2024, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. at 1 – 2. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. 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 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 5 Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $62,500.00 (for pain and suffering) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Proffer at 2. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. 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 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/22/24 Page 3 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS JEREMY ALLRED, Petitioner, Case No. 23-1385V (ECF) v. CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER CORCORAN SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION I. Procedural History On August 22, 2023, Jeremy Allred (“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 “right shoulder/arm pain” as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on September 21, 2021. Pet. at 1. On October 15, 2024, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, conceding entitlement in this case because petitioner met the criteria to establish a presumptive Table SIRVA injury. ECF Doc. No. 28 at 1, 5-6. On October 16, 2024, the Court issued its Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF Doc. No. 29. Case 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/22/24 Page 4 of 5 II. Items of Compensation and Form of the Award Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $62,500.00. The award is comprised of the following: $62,500.00 for pain and suffering. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) regarding his September 21, 2021 flu vaccination. Petitioner agrees.1 III. Form of the Award The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $62,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees. Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. 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 JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant 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 medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:23-vv-01385-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/22/24 Page 5 of 5 s/ Mark K. Hellie MARK K. HELLIE Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 T: (202) 616-4208 E: mark.hellie@usdoj.gov DATED: October 17, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01385-cl-extra-10749010 Date issued/filed: 2024-11-22 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10282422 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1385V JEREMY ALLRED, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: October 16, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On August 22, 2023, Jeremy Allred 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 from “right shoulder/ arm pain,” as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 21, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On October 15, 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. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 1, 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). Respondent further agrees 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). that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5 – 6. 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_23-vv-01385-cl-extra-11120647 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10654060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1385V JEREMY ALLRED, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 15, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On August 22, 2023, Jeremy Allred 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 following an influenza vaccine he received on September 21, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 18, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 31. 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. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $24,463.03 (representing $22,910.95 in fees plus $1,552.08 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed April 8, 2025, ECF No. 37. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 37-1 at 1. Respondent reacted to the motion on April 22, 2025, 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 2-4, ECF No. 38. Petitioner filed no 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 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 I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations. I find the proposed rates to be reasonable and hereby award them herein. However, a few of the tasks performed by attorney Gentry in this matter are more properly billed using a paralegal rate. 3 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries reflect reasonably performed tasks, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $1006.20. 4 Additionally, the billing record reveals several hours billed on tasks considered administrative in nature. 5 Billing at any professional rate for clerical and other administrative work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. 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 also Floyd v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-556V, 2017 WL 1344623, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2017) (“[S]ome tasks performed by paralegals were clerical / secretarial in nature. Examples include scheduling status 3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on medical records requests, bate stamping documents, drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR questionnaire, notice of filing, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. See billing entries dated: 8/26/2023, 8/31/2023 (three entries), 5/6/2024, 6/3/2024 (two entries), 6/28/2024, 10/31/2024. ECF No. 37-1 at 6-18. 4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($531.00 - $175.00 = $356.00 x 1.2) + ($561.00 - $175.00 = $386.00 x 1.5 hrs.) = $1006.20 5 See billing entries dated: 8/22/2023, 4/3/2024, 6/3/2024, 7/2/2024, 7/28/2024, 8/12/2024, 10/17/2024. ECF No. 37-1 at 6-18, totaling $445.80 in fees claimed for administrative tasks. 3 conferences...preparing compact discs...and filing documents through the CM/ECF system.”); Kerridge v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-852V, 2017 WL 4020523, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28, 2017) (noting that billing for “administrative tasks” ... are not compensated in the Vaccine Program); Silver v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1019V, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1058, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2018) (noting that “‘receiv[ing], review[ing,] and process[ing]’ records and court orders, and noting deadlines, are all clerical tasks.”). Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $445.80. Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 37-1 at 19-44. 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 $23,011.03 (representing $21,458.95 in fees plus $1,552.08 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. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4