VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01699 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01699 Petitioner: Mary Stockwell Filed: 2023-10-02 Decided: 2025-01-08 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2022-09-28 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 90760 AI-assisted case summary: On October 2, 2023, Mary Stockwell filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on September 28, 2022 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement on August 19, 2024, agreeing that the case was appropriate for compensation as a Table SIRVA. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found Ms. Stockwell entitled to compensation on August 20, 2024. The public record does not describe her first symptom, onset interval, shoulder examinations, imaging, injections, therapy, work effects, or daily-life limits. On January 8, 2025, the Chief Special Master awarded $90,760.00 as a lump sum payable to Ms. Stockwell. The award consisted of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering and $760.00 for past unreimbursable expenses. The proffer identified Ms. Stockwell as a competent adult. A later August 13, 2025 decision addressed attorneys' fees and costs only. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine September 28, 2022; Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded entitlement August 19, 2024; entitlement August 20, 2024; damages January 8, 2025. Award $90,760.00 = $90,000.00 pain/suffering + $760.00 expenses. SM Corcoran. Petition filed October 2, 2023. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01699-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-19 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/20/2024) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01699-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/19/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1699V MARY STOCKWELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 20, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Neil Bhargava, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 2, 2023, Mary Stockwell (“Petitioner”) 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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 28, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On August 19, 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 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-01699-UNJ Document 21 Filed 09/19/24 Page 2 of 2 2, ECF No. 17. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 6. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01699-cl-extra-10734210 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-19 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267620 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1699V MARY STOCKWELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 20, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Neil Bhargava, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On October 2, 2023, Mary Stockwell (“Petitioner”) 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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 28, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On August 19, 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 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). 2, ECF No. 17. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 6. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01699-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-11 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/08/2025) regarding 26 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 02/11/25 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1699V MARY STOCKWELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 8, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Neil Bhargava, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 2, 2023, Mary Stockwell 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to her on September 28, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 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-01699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 02/11/25 Page 2 of 5 On August 20, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 19. On January 7, 2025, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00 in pain and suffering and $760.00 in unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1- 2, ECF No. 25. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $90,760.00 for pain and suffering and unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 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 Case 1:23-vv-01699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 02/11/25 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS MARY STOCKWELL, Petitioner, v. No. 23-1699V (ECF) Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 2, 2023, Mary Stockwell (“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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on September 27, 2022. Petition at 1. On August 19, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on August 20, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF Nos. 17, 19. I. Items of Compensation a. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. Case 1:23-vv-01699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 02/11/25 Page 4 of 5 b. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $760.00 for past unreimbursable expenses. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:1 a. A lump sum payment of $90,760.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 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 GABRIELLE M. FIELDING 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 lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:23-vv-01699-UNJ Document 30 Filed 02/11/25 Page 5 of 5 /s/ Neil Bhargava NEIL BHARGAVA Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-3989 Email: neil.bhargava@usdoj.gov Dated: January 7, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01699-cl-extra-11139706 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-17 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10673119 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1699V MARY STOCKWELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 13, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 2, 2023, Mary Stockwell 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 as a result of an influenza vaccination administered to her on September 28, 2022. Petition, ECF No. 1. On January 8, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 26. 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 $25,178.29 (representing $23,217.60 in fees plus $1,960.69 in costs). Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed on April 28, 2025. ECF No. 31. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 31 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on May 12, 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. 32. Petitioner filed a reply requesting an award of fees and costs as indicated in the Motion. ECF No. 33. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a minor 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 2 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 The hourly rates requested by attorneys and paralegals for all time billed through the end of 2024 in this matter, 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 rates previously awarded to them. Application of the foregoing reduces the fees to be awarded by $712.00. 3 Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 31-2. 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 $24,466.29 (representing $22,505.60 in fees plus $1,960.69 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 5.00 hours billed by Ms. Durant in 2025) + ($475.00 - $430.00 = $45.00 x 12.00 hours billed by Ms. Vitt in 2024) + ($508.00 - $460.00 = $48.00 x 1.50 hours billed by Ms. Vitt in 2025) = $712.00 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