VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01184 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01184 Petitioner: Crystal Taisipic Filed: 2024-08-02 Decided: 2025-06-16 Vaccine: influenza vaccine Vaccination date: 2023-10-03 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 19000 AI-assisted case summary: On August 2, 2024, Crystal Taisipic filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 3, 2023. The petition alleged shoulder injury related to vaccine administration and residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied that Ms. Taisipic sustained a Table SIRVA, denied vaccine causation, and denied vaccine-related sequelae. The public decision and attached materials do not describe the first symptom in detail, the treatment chronology, diagnostic testing, therapy, work limitations, or day-to-day effects. The parties filed a joint stipulation, and the court adopted it as a reasonable damages decision. On June 16, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $19,000.00 as a lump sum. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine October 3, 2023 allegedly causing SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated. COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied Table SIRVA, causation, and sequelae; public stipulation lacks clinical chronology. Award $19,000 lump sum. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition August 2, 2024; decision June 16, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01184-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-30 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/16/2025) regarding 22 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1184V CRYSTAL TAISIPIC, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 16, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Alec Saxe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On August 2, 2024, Crystal Taisipic filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On October 3, 2023, Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined in the Table; she further alleges that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, and that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine was the cause-in-fact of Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 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 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on June 16, 2025, 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 $19,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 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 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-01184-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/30/25 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01184-cl-extra-11137444 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-12 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10670857 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1184V CRYSTAL TAISIPIC, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 11, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Alec Saxe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On August 2, 2024, Crystal Taisipic 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 following an influenza vaccine she received on October 3, 2023. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 16, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 22. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $25,443.75 (representing $24,411.60 in fees plus $1,032.15 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 18, 2025, ECF No. 26. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. Motion, Tab C at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on June 25, 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. Response at 2, 4. ECF No. 27. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason 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 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein. However, some of the tasks performed by attorneys Jimmy Zgheib and Jennifer Sayad 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. In evaluating a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, special masters “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011). Instead, in appropriate circumstances they may make reasonable, across-the-board percentage adjustments. Here, such an overall percentage cut is reasonable, and preferrable to a time- consuming line-by-line review of the bill. I therefore reduce the total fees to be awarded herein by five percent as a fair adjustment to account for the paralegal duties issue mentioned. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of fees to be awarded by $1220.58.4 3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on medical records requests, bates stamping documents, and drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR questionnaire, notice of filing, notice of intent, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. Entries with paralegal tasks billed at an attorney rate include, but are not limited to, the following: 8/2/2024 (four entries), 1/2/205, 6/11/2025 (three entries), 6/13/2025, 6/16/2025, 6/18/2025. Motion, Tab A at 1-14. 4 This amount is calculated as follows: $24,411.60 x 0.05 = $1220.58. 3 Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. Motion, Tab B at 1-14. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $24,223.17 (representing $23,191.02 in fees plus $1,032.15 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 filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4