Feedback

Ruffolo V Secretary Of Health And Human Services

                                              CORRECTED

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 20-1761V


    CHRISTYNE RUFFOLO,
                                                              Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
    v.                                                        Filed: June 11, 2025


    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                        Respondent.


Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

        On December 4, 2020, Christyne Ruffolo 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 from Guillain-Barré syndrome as a
result of the flu vaccine and that she experienced the residual effects of this condition for
more than six months. Petition, ECF No. 1. On May 29, 2024, I issued a decision awarding
compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 71.


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 $67,002.73 (representing $63,960.70 in fees plus $2,911.03 in costs, plus $131.00 in
Petitioner’s personally incurred costs). Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed January
9, 2025, ECF No. 77. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that
$131.00 in personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred, as noted above. ECF No. 78.

        Respondent reacted to the motion on January 13, 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. Motion
at 2-4, ECF No. 79. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.

       I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my
experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested
hours or rates. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all
claimed costs. ECF No. 77 at 47-72. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates
or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.

       The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total
amount of $67,002.73 (representing $66,871.73 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus
$131.00 representing Petitioner’s personally incurred 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. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                      s/Brian H. Corcoran
                                                      Brian H. Corcoran
                                                      Chief Special Master




3
  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.
                                                  2