VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01962 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01962 Petitioner: John M. Decker Filed: 2023-11-07 Decided: 2025-06-12 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2022-11-15 Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 110905 AI-assisted case summary: On November 7, 2023, John M. Decker filed a petition alleging that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome after an influenza vaccination administered on November 15, 2022. He later filed an amended petition for the same vaccine-injury combination. Respondent conceded entitlement on February 27, 2025, agreeing that Mr. Decker’s injury was consistent with GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that the remaining statutory requirements were met. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted entitlement on March 5, 2025. The public decision and proffer do not give a detailed medical chronology of Mr. Decker’s GBS course, but they do identify the compensated categories. Respondent proffered an award of $110,905.00, consisting of $107,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,405.00 for past unreimbursable expenses related to the vaccine injury. Mr. Decker agreed to the proffer. On June 12, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded the lump sum through counsel for prompt disbursement to Mr. Decker. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine November 15, 2022; alleged Table Guillain-Barré syndrome. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and all legal prerequisites; public text does not describe experts or a litigated medical mechanism. Entitlement March 5, 2025; damages June 12, 2025. Award $110,905.00 = $107,500.00 pain/suffering + $3,405.00 past unreimbursable expenses. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran. Petition filed November 7, 2023. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01962-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-11 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/05/2025) regarding 21 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01962-UNJ Document 24 Filed 04/11/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1962V JOHN M. DECKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 5, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Mark Peyser Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander & Friedlander, P.C., McLean, VA, for Petitioner. Jay Travis Williamson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On November 7, 2023, John Decker 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 a “Table Injury” of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on November 15, 2022. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result of his injury. Petition at 1-3. 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 1:23-vv-01962-UNJ Document 24 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 2 On February 27, 2025, 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 has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury table. Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has suffered the sequela of his injury for more than six months and all other legal requirements have been met for compensation under the Act. Id. at 7-8. 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-01962-cl-extra-10843586 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-11 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10376998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1962V JOHN M. DECKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 5, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Mark Peyser Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander & Friedlander, P.C., McLean, VA, for Petitioner. Jay Travis Williamson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On November 7, 2023, John Decker 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 a “Table Injury” of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on November 15, 2022. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result of his injury. Petition at 1-3. 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 27, 2025, 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 has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury table. Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has suffered the sequela of his injury for more than six months and all other legal requirements have been met for compensation under the Act. Id. at 7-8. 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-01962-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-15 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/12/2025) regarding 27 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01962-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/15/25 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1962V JOHN M. DECKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 12, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Mark Peyser Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander & Friedlander, P.C., McLean, VA, for Petitioner. Jay Travis Williamson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 7, 2023, John M. Decker 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 15, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On March 5, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for GBS. On June 10, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation indicating Petitioner should be awarded $110,905.00 (comprised of $107,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,405.00 for past unreimbursable expenses). Respondent’s Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”) at 2. 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-01962-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/15/25 Page 2 of 5 Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. 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 Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $110,905.00 (comprised of $107,500.00 for pain and suffering and $3,405.00 for past unreimbursable expenses) 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 Case 1:23-vv-01962-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/15/25 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS JOHN M. DECKER, Petitioner, No. 23-1962V v. Chief Special Master Corcoran ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On November 7, 2023, John M. Decker (“petitioner”), filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), for an injury petitioner allegedly sustained as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on November 15, 2022. Petition at 1. Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), which is an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) for the flu vaccine.1 Id. On June 24, 2024, petitioner filed an amended petition seeking compensation for the same vaccine/injury combination. Amended Petition at 1. On February 27, 2025, 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, and on March 5, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 20, 21. 1 The Vaccine Injury Table is located at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3. Case 1:23-vv-01962-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/15/25 Page 4 of 5 I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $107,500.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $3,405.00. 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 following2: a lump sum payment of $110,905.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, John M. Decker: $110,905.00 2 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-01962-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/15/25 Page 5 of 5 Respectfully submitted, YAAKOV M. ROTH Acting Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division COLLEEN HARTLEY Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ J. Travis Williamson J. TRAVIS WILLIAMSON Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 598-1099 Jay.T.Williamson@usdoj.gov DATED: June 10, 2025 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01962-cl-extra-11206061 Date issued/filed: 2025-11-20 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10739476 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1962V JOHN M. DECKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 20, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Mark Peyser Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander & Friedlander, P.C., McLean, VA, for Petitioner. Jay Travis Williamson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On November 7, 2023, John M. Decker 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 Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 15, 2022. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 12, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 27. 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 $22,623.75. Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed July 24, 2025, ECF No. 31. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that no costs are being claimed herein, and Petitioner incurred no personal costs in this case. ECF No. 31 at 1. Respondent reacted to the motion on July 25, 2025, stating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 32. 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 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 Petitioner requests that I apply the hourly rate of $625.00 for work performed by his attorney, Mark Peyser Friedlander, Jr., for all time billed in the 2023-25 timeframe, and the hourly rate of $200.00 for work performed by his paralegal in the same period. However, for work performed in the 2020-23 timeframe, Mr. Friedlander was previously awarded the lesser rate of $425.00. and $175.00 for paralegal work. See Dacurawat v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1389V, 2023 WL 4311236 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2023). I find no reason to deviate from these 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 Mr. Friedlander and his assistant’s hourly rates to be consistent with Dacurawat. Additionally, this appears to be Mr. Friedlander’s third Vaccine Act case to reach the fees stage. His proposed rate of $625.00 for 2024-25 is therefore excessive based on the hourly rate increases that I would normally allow for similarly-situated Program attorneys with comparable level of experience. Rather, based on my experience applying the factors 3 relevant to determining proper hourly rates, I hereby award Mr. Friedlander $450.00 for 2024, and $475.00 for 2025, reflecting a more reasonable increase of $25.00 per year. Application of the foregoing rates results in an overall Fees reduction of $5,300.00. 4 ATTORNEY COSTS Although Petitioner’s counsel did not submit documentation for any costs incurred in this matter, it is clear the $402.00 filing fee was paid in this case as evidenced by the case docket. As such, I hereby award that sum. 3 See McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). 4 This amount consists of reducing Mr. Friedlander and his assistant’s hourly rates - calculated as follows: ($625.00 - $425.00 = $200.00 x 8.05 hours billed by attorney in 2023) + $625.00 - $450.00 = $175.00 x 11.30 hours billed by attorney in 2024) + ($625.00 - $475.00 = $150.00 x 6.75 hours billed by attorney in 2025) + ($200.00 - $175.00 = $25.00 x 28.00 hours billed by his assistant in 2023-24) = $5,300.00 3 CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $17,725.75 (representing $17,323.75 in fees plus $402.00 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. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 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