Counts v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-2051C (Filed: June 26, 2025) ) CULMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant, ) and ) ) AMENTUM SERVICES, INC., ) ) Defendant-Intervenor. ) ) ORDER On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff, Culmen International, LLC (“Culmen”), voluntarily dismissed its case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ECF No. 43, effectively agreeing to the government’s proposed corrective action, ECF No. 42. Nearly a month later, on June 12, 2025, Culmen filed a motion, ECF No. 44, for relief from the standard protective order (“PO”), ECF No. 9, which this Court issued at Culmen’s request, ECF No. 7. Culmen’s pending motion seeks an extension of the PO’s record destruction deadline — until sixty days following the conclusion of the government’s corrective action. ECF No. 44. On June 23, 2025, the government filed its timely opposition to Culmen’s motion. ECF No. 46. On balance, this Court agrees with the government, at least in this case: There is nothing unique about Culmen’s circumstance; this case is one of many protests in which the procuring agency decided to take corrective action. If the Court were to grant Culmen’s motion, every protestor under such circumstances might seek the same relief, thus nullifying the important protections within Paragraphs 2 and 20 of the standard protective order. The Court should not let Culmen overcome  the protective order’s express terms so easily. ECF No. 46 at 6. Culmen posits, in contrast, that “[c]ertain arguments and the factual underpinnings of the same, including those attacking the arbitrary removal (or addition) of technical factor-related strengths and weaknesses, may provide a basis for protest in the future, depending on the results of the Agency’s corrective action.” ECF No. 44 at 3. According to Culmen, “[w]ithout continued access to the administrative record from this case, any future complaint would be unable to state a valid basis of protest with respect to such arguments[.]” Id. But Culmen’s argument does not make sense given the government’s representation about what its correction action would entail. The government represented to this Court (and the parties) that the “agency’s corrective action will include cancellation of the award decision, re-evaluation of the most recent proposals submitted by offerors, establishment of a new competitive range, discussions with offerors within the new competitive range (following minor amendments to the solicitation, if necessary), and ultimately a new award decision.” ECF No. 42. Under these circumstances, the new procurement decision will stand on its own: the new award decision will replace the canceled one, and the new award decision may be challenged, if at all, on the basis of the new procurement record. Cf. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, -- U.S. --, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1908 (2020) (holding that, on remand, “the agency can ‘deal with the problem afresh’ by taking new agency action” (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 201 (1947))). Accordingly, the Court is doubtful — although we do not prejudge the issue — that the record of the now-cancelled award decision could possibly be relevant to a new procurement decision. In that regard, if Culmen had an objection to the scope of the corrective action, Culmen should not have acquiesced to it so readily. Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 57, 71-72 (2022) (parties are bound by agreed-upon corrective action). In addition, Culmen voluntarily dismissed its protest without negotiating any relaxation of the PO’s record destruction deadline that Culmen now seeks to modify. The Court sees no reason to grant Culmen’s request at this late date, particularly when the standard PO contemplates the possibility of corrective action by tying the destruction deadline to the “the conclusion of this action.” ECF No. 9 ¶ 20. Culmen obtained the PO it asked for, and cannot now complain about the unfairness of the PO’s terms.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-034V MIGUEL PEREZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 6, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On January 10, 2023, Miguel Perez 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine he received on October 20, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On December 19, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 25. 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 $12,324.07 (representing $11,027.20 in fees plus $1,296.87 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed February 14, 2025, ECF No. 30. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 30 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on February 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. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 31. 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. 30 at 12-24. 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 $12,324.07 (representing $11,027.20 in fees plus $1,296.87 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.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 filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-962V JOHN OLIVER Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 27, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner. Ryan Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On June 24, 2024, John Oliver 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza vaccination received on October 2, 2022. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, that the vaccine was administered within the United States, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result of his injury. Id. at 1, 9-10. 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 May 20, 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 Conceding Entitlement to Compensation and Proffer of Damages at 1. Specifically, Respondent has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury table. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months and all other legal requirements have been met 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

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-986V LORRIE ULRICH, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 19, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On June 26, 2024, Lorrie Ulrich 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”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on December 7, 2022. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 29. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On April 15, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On May 16, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating that Petitioner should be awarded a lump sum of $92,763.17, consisting of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,763.17 for past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. at 1-2. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated 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).  Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $92,763.17, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2  01ÿ345ÿ610357ÿ839358ÿ 6 3ÿ ÿ575 9ÿ908ÿ 0 5ÿ ÿ85 09ÿ9835 8ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ)#ÿ012345,ÿ "#ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ6 7ÿ$.89:ÿ+9-!ÿ!8!9ÿ ( ÿÿ $%&'ÿ(ÿ&%ÿ&)*ÿÿ ÿ +&)ÿ$,$ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ -./#ÿ ÿ 58 17513;8ÿ 5 ÿ1ÿ9<9 7ÿ ÿ 518930 1ÿ ÿ  ÿ=>ÿ0?ÿ0@01ÿ!!ÿ:!86ÿAB.!CDÿ7:/ÿ9ÿ.ÿ7!ÿ8E.-9ÿ>/!ÿ6ÿ )99:ÿ6:/6/ÿ,988ÿF>!Gÿ&8ÿ7ÿH345ÿ10ÿ#$##ÿIIÿJ@@992Hÿÿ2J1ÿAB,988ÿ&8Cÿ!ÿ B&8CDÿ9::KKÿ69ÿ-6ÿ->77!/ÿ9ÿ$6>:/!ÿF>!Gÿ:9/ÿÿ,988ÿ&/E-!9ÿ AB$,&CDÿ9-ÿ/7/ÿÿ6ÿ,988ÿF>!Gÿ%9L:ÿ7::MKÿ9/E-!9ÿ7ÿ9ÿ7:>N9ÿ AB7:>CDÿ"988ÿ-6ÿ!8"/ÿÿ*8EL!ÿ?ÿ0@00#ÿÿÿ9ÿH#ÿÿ ÿ&.!:ÿHOÿ0@0Oÿ6ÿ67ÿ $.89:ÿ+9-!ÿ-->/ÿ9ÿ>:Kÿÿ :Eÿ7/Kÿ.!ÿ:/ÿÿ8E.-9#ÿÿ(ÿ )#ÿH?#ÿ 0Pÿ 0RSTUÿVWÿVTXSYUZR[VYÿ &#ÿ 9ÿ9/ÿ$>77!Kÿ -./ÿ.!77!-ÿ69ÿ.!ÿ-6>:/ÿLÿ9M9!//ÿ]3@@@@#@@ÿÿ.9ÿ9/ÿ->7

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-665V MARIE TYLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 13, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jessi Carin Huff, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On January 12, 2021, Marie Tyler 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 1, 2018, 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 caused 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).  Nevertheless, on May 13, 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 $30,000.00 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  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS MARIE TYLER, Petitioner, V. No. 21-665V Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Marie Tyler ("petitioner") filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program , 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner' s receipt of the influenza ("flu ") vaccine , which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccina