VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01621 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01621 Petitioner: G.R. Filed: 2023-09-20 Decided: 2024-12-30 Vaccine: tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) Vaccination date: 2021-11-16 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 60000 AI-assisted case summary: On September 20, 2023, G.R. filed a petition seeking compensation for a shoulder injury related to a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccination. The public record is internally inconsistent on the vaccination date: the decision text refers to November 19, 2021, while the attached stipulation and payment clause identify the Tdap vaccination as administered on November 16, 2021. Respondent denied that G.R. sustained a Table SIRVA, denied that the Tdap vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, denied that she suffered residual effects for more than six months, and denied that her current condition was a vaccine sequela. The public stipulation decision does not describe symptom onset, medical examinations, imaging, injections, therapy, or functional limitations. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the parties' stipulation on December 30, 2024. G.R. received $60,000.00 as a lump sum payable to her for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. A later September 17, 2025 decision addressed attorneys' fees and costs only. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; Tdap vaccine date inconsistent in public text (decision says November 19, 2021; stipulation/payment clause says November 16, 2021); alleged SIRVA. COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied Table SIRVA, causation, residual effects, and sequelae; public merits text lacks clinical chronology. Award $60,000.00 lump sum. SM Corcoran December 30, 2024. Petition filed September 20, 2023. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01621-cl-extra-10800169 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10333581 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1621V G.R., Petitioner, Chief Special Master Corcoran v. Filed: January 21, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDACT1 On September 20, 2023, G.R. 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 (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a causation-in-fact injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine on November 19, 2021. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 7. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In light of my conclusion below, I intend to post this Order with a redacted caption. To the extent Petitioner would seek further redaction, 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. 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 December 30, 2024, I issued a decision awarding Petitioner an amount agreed upon by the parties. ECF No. 29. On January 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a timely motion for redaction. ECF No. 30. Petitioner requests that I “redact her name from the Decision and the attached Stipulation.” Petitioner’s Motion for Redact and to Amend Caption (“Motion”) at 2. Acknowledging that “petitioners are required to make some specialized showing to justify the relief of redaction; redaction is not available simply at a petitioner's beck and call,” Petitioner provides information setting forth personal safety concerns she has that relate to the damages award she has received. Id. And she cites several examples where I approved a similar redaction request – L.F. and M.W.3 Motion at 2. In his response – filed on January 21, 2025, “[R]espondent defers to the sound discretion of the Special Master to determine which remedy strikes the appropriate balance between the public and private interests in this instance.” Response to Petitioner Motion to Redact Decision at 5, ECF No. 30. He adds that he “does not believe it is appropriate to advocate in favor of disclosure of petitioner’s information in any particular case, including this one, but rather defers to the Special Master’s judgment as to whether petitioner’s Motion should be granted.” Id. To facilitate action on her motion, Petitioner previously stated she will not be filing a reply. See Informal Remark, dated Jan. 17, 2025. I have previously discussed in other decisions the Vaccine Act’s treatment of requests to redact Program decisions and rulings. See generally K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-0312V, 2015 WL 11387761, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2015), mot. for review den’d,123 Fed. Cl. 497 (2015) (denying a request to redact petitioner’s name and description of illnesses). Generally, information provided in vaccine proceedings may not be disclosed without the written consent of the party providing the information. Section 12(d)(4)(A); Vaccine Rule 18(a). The Act requires disclosure of the decisions of the special masters or the court but provides for redaction of certain categories of information – “medical files and similar files” – but only if the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Section 12(d)(4)(B); accord. Vaccine Rule 18(b). The Vaccine Rules allows the initials of a minor to be used in the petition’s caption when filed. Vaccine Rule 16(b). Although adult petitioners’ names are not afforded this automatic protection, they may be redacted if the movant establishes proper grounds for so doing. See generally W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440, 460-61 3 L.F., v. Health & Hum. Servs, No. 17-0299V, 2019 WL 11315071 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 29, 2019); M.W. v. Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0267V, 2021 WL 1594218 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2021). 2 (Fed. Cl. 2011) aff’d, 704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (analogizing Vaccine Act’s privacy concerns to treatment of similar issues under the Freedom of Information Act, claimant’s name was properly subject to redaction from decision); but see Langland v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 07-0036V, 2011 WL 802695, at *7-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2011), mot. for rev. denied on non-relevant grounds, 109 Fed. Cl. 421 (2013) (petitioners not entitled to redaction of names from decision where they failed to establish compelling grounds for so doing). There is a notable public interest in knowing the vaccination and medical information related to a petitioner’s injury but no public interest in knowing a petitioner’s name. A.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-0605V, 2013 WL 322918, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2013). W.C. and Langland stand as two somewhat-opposed interpretations of how strict the standard for obtaining redaction should be. Langland adopts a more stringent approach, while W.C. emphasizes a balancing test that weighs a petitioner’s privacy interests against “the public purpose of the Vaccine Act.” W.C.,100 Fed. Cl. at 460-61; K.L., 2015 WL 11387761, at *2-3. In either case, however, a petitioner needs to make some showing to justify the relief of redaction; redaction is not available simply at a petitioner’s beck and call. W.C., 100 Fed. Cl. at 460 (balancing of interests favors redaction “where an objection [to disclosure] is made on reasonable grounds”) (emphasis added). I have permitted redaction in cases where such a specialized showing was made without reconciling these two competing standards or choosing one over the other. See, e.g., K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-0312V, 2015 WL 11882259 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 30, 2015) (granting petitioner’s second request to redact only her name to initials which was accompanied by additional information regarding the potential harm she may suffer regarding her employment). Under the correct standard, a petitioner’s general concern for privacy, shared by many vaccine case petitioners, is not sufficient to warrant redaction, especially when there is a strong public interest in the information’s disclosure. See W.C., 100 Fed. Cl. at 461. But claimants can make individualized showings going beyond such general preferences that persuasively establish grounds for redaction. Here, Petitioner has presented a credible argument that disclosure of the damages decision awarding her compensation for her SIRVA could adversely impact her individual safety and that of her family.4 See Motion at 2-3. There is a notable public interest in knowing the vaccination and medical information related to a petitioner’s injury, but no public interest per se in knowing a 4 I am purposefully not including further details in this order as that disclosure would thwart the purpose of this redaction. 3 petitioner’s name. A.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-0605V, 2013 WL 322918, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2013). Here, I find that granting Petitioner’s request to redact her name to reflect her initials only has both been justified by the Motion, and is not contrary to the Program’s policy concerns about publicizing its entitlement decisions. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, I hereby determine that Petitioner has established grounds for redaction of her name in the Decision issued on December 30, 2024, and I therefore GRANT the motion filed by Petitioner on January 10, 2024, at ECF No. 30. The Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to change the caption of this case to the caption above. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01621-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-20 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/30/2024) regarding 29 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1621V G.R., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 20, 2023, G.R. 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”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a causation-in-fact injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on November 19, 2021. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 7; Stipulation, filed Dec. 30, 2024, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of the SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA, alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 7-8; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies 1 When this unpublished Decision was originally filed, I advised my intent to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This Decision is being posted with Petitioner’s name redacted to reflect initials only. Except for that change and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This Decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 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-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 2 of 7 that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the Tdap vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; denies that [P]etitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months; and denies that [P]etitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on December 30, 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 $60,000.00 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 1:23-vv-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 3 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Petitioner, No. 23-1621V Chief Special Master Corcoran V. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: cllllll I. ~ ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l Oto 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular-pertussis (''Tdap") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § I00.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine on November 16, 2021. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury 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. Case 1:23-vv-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; denies that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months; and denies that petitioner's current 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, artd after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of$60,000.00 in the form 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 entry 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-2 l (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. I0 . 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 primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, 2 Case 1:23-vv-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 5 of 7 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-I5 (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 unreimbursed 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-15(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-10 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 Tdap vaccination administered on November 16, 2021, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about September 20, 2023, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 23-1621 V. 3 Case 1:23-vv-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 6 of 7 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 terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity 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. I 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's current 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 1:23-vv-01621-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/20/25 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENT AT lVE PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ~~vec, ._-4A;( LU.A~ LEAH V. DU T ESQ. HEATHER L. PEARLMAN LAW OFFICE OF EAH V. DURANT, PLLC Deputy Director 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Torts Branch Washington, DC 20006 Civil Division Phone: 202-775-9200 U.S. Department of Justice Email: ldurant@durantllc.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORJZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEAL TH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey S. Digitally signed by Jeffrey S.Beach-S -S Beach Dite:2024.12.1915:SS:37 (jyfjar7~ --0s·oo· 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. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington. DC 20044-0i46 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Phone: (202) 353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov Dated: 12 / 30 / 2-0 2,.4 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01621-cl-extra-10803712 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-20 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10337124 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1621V G.R., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 20, 2023, G.R. 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”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a causation-in-fact injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on November 19, 2021. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 7; Stipulation, filed Dec. 30, 2024, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of the SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA, alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 7-8; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies 1 When this unpublished Decision was originally filed, I advised my intent to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This Decision is being posted with Petitioner’s name redacted to reflect initials only. Except for that change and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This Decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 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 [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the Tdap vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; denies that [P]etitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months; and denies that [P]etitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on December 30, 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 $60,000.00 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Petitioner, No. 23-1621V Chief Special Master Corcoran V. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: I. cllllll ~ ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l Oto 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular-pertussis (''Tdap") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § I00.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine on November 16, 2021. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury 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 Tdap vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; denies that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months; and denies that petitioner's current 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, artd after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of$60,000.00 in the form 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 entry 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-2 l (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. I0. 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 primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, 2 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- I5(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 unreimbursed 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-15(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-10 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 Tdap vaccination administered on November 16, 2021, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about September 20, 2023, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 23-1621 V. 3 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 terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity 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. I 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's current 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: ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATlVE PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LEAH V. DU T ESQ. ~~vec, ._-4A;( HEATHER L. PEARLMAN LU.A~ LAW OFFICE OF EAH V. DURANT, PLLC Deputy Director 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Torts Branch Washington, DC 20006 Civil Division Phone: 202-775-9200 U.S. Department of Justice Email: ldurant@durantllc.com 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: Digitally signed by Jeffrey Jeffrey S. S.Beach-S Beach -S Dite:2024.12.1915:SS:37 --0s·oo· for (jyfjar7~ 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. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington. DC 20044-0i46 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-25A Phone: (202) 353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov Dated: 12 / 30 / 2-0 2,.4 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01621-cl-extra-11191731 Date issued/filed: 2025-10-31 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10725146 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1621V G.R., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 17, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On September 20, 2023, G.R., 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 a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a causation-in-fact injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine on November 19, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On December 30, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 29. 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 $41,007.63 (representing $40,093.60 in fees plus $914.03 in costs). Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed on July 8, 2025. ECF No. 39. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on July 18, 2025, reporting that he is satisfied 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 2-4, ECF No. 40. Petitioner filed a reply requesting an award of fees and costs as indicated in the Motion. ECF No. 11. 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). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES The hourly rates requested by attorneys that performed work in this matter and their supporting paralegals for all time billed through the end of 2023, are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and shall be awarded. However, the rates requested by Leah Durant for her time billed in 2025 and Elizabeth Vitt for her time billed in 2024-25 require adjustment. Attorney Durant was previously awarded the lesser rate of $530.00 for work performed in 2025. See Jackman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1749, Slip Op. 36 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 24, 2025). And Ms. Vitt was previously awarded $430.00 for time billed in 2024 and $460.00 for time billed in 2025. See Toothman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0207V, Slip Op. 47 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2025). I find no reason to deviate from these reasoned determinations 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 hereby reduce the hourly rates for both attorneys to be consistent with the hourly rates previously awarded to them. Application of the foregoing reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $907.60. 3 Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 39-2. 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. I award a total of $40,100.03 (representing $39,186.00 in fees plus $914.03 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 3 This amount is calculated as follows: ($550.00 - $530.00 = $20.00 x 0.20 hours billed by Ms. Durant in 2025) + ($475.00 - $430.00 = $45.00 x 12.40 hours billed by Ms. Vitt in 2024) + ($508.00 - $460.00 = $48.00 x 7.20 hours billed by Ms. Vitt in 2025) = $907.60. 3 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. 4