VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01700 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01700 Petitioner: Valerie Hoff Filed: 2024-10-21 Decided: 2025-06-03 Vaccine: influenza vaccine Vaccination date: 2023-09-27 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 57500 AI-assisted case summary: On October 21, 2024, Valerie Hoff filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 27, 2023 caused shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent conceded entitlement and proffered damages, agreeing that Ms. Hoff's injury was consistent with Table SIRVA and that she met the statutory prerequisites for compensation. The public decision does not describe the first symptom, treatment chronology, imaging, injections, physical therapy, work effects, or residual limitations. On June 3, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement and awarded $57,500.00 for pain and suffering as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine September 27, 2023 causing Table SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; COMPENSATED. Public ruling/proffer lacks treatment chronology. Award $57,500 pain/suffering. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition October 21, 2024; decision June 3, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01700-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-24 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/03/2025) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:24-vv-01700-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/24/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1700V VALERIE HOFF, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 3, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, Il, for Petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 21, 2024, Valerie Hoff filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 27, 2023. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 9, 14. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 10-12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this unpublished 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 1:24-vv-01700-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/24/25 Page 2 of 2 On June 2, 2025, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer, in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5. 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_24-vv-01700-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-04 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/03/2025) regarding 20 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:24-vv-01700-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1700V VALERIE HOFF, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 3, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, Il, for Petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES1 On October 21, 2024, Valerie Hoff filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 27, 2023. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 9, 14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 2, 2025, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer, in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 1. On June 3, 2025, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement. ECF No. 19. 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-01700-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 2 Respondent represents that Petitioner agrees to his proffer on an award of compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 5. 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 combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer,3 I award the following compensation: • A lump sum of $57,500.00 (for pain and suffering) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 6. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. at 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Because the combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer contains information regarding Petitioner’s personal medical history, which is not generally included in a Proffer when separately filed, it is not attached hereto. 4 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 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01700-cl-extra-11113673 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-04 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10647086 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1700V VALERIE HOFF, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 3, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, Il, for Petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES1 On October 21, 2024, Valerie Hoff filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 27, 2023. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 9, 14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 2, 2025, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer, in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 1. On June 3, 2025, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement. ECF No. 19. 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). Respondent represents that Petitioner agrees to his proffer on an award of compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 5. 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 combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer,3 I award the following compensation: • A lump sum of $57,500.00 (for pain and suffering) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 6. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. at 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Because the combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer contains information regarding Petitioner’s personal medical history, which is not generally included in a Proffer when separately filed, it is not attached hereto. 4 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 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01700-cl-extra-11137303 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-12 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10670716 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1700V VALERIE HOFF, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 6, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 21, 2024, Valerie Hoff 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 September 27, 2023. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 3, 2025, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding the Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 19. Also, on June 3, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 20. 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 $20,746.80 (representing $19,697.00 in fees plus $1,049.80 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 5, 2025, ECF No. 25. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. Motion, Exhibit 4 at 1. Respondent reacted to the Motion on June 9, 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. 26. Petitioner indicated thereafter that she does not intend to file a substantive reply. ECF No. 27. 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. 2 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 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 attorney Daniel Alholm 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 $984.85.4 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 that include paralegal tasks billed at an attorney rate include, but are not limited to, the following: 9/23/2024, 9/24/2024, 2/12/2024 (three entries), 6/3/2025. Motion, Exhibit 2 at 1-7. 4 This amount is calculated as follows: $19,697.00 x 0.05 = $984.85. 3 Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. Motion, Exhibit 3 at 1-8. 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 $19,761.95 (representing $18,712.15 in fees plus $1,049.80 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