VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01773 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01773 Petitioner: Martha Jane Ritchie Filed: 2018-11-16 Decided: 2023-08-31 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-11-14 Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 634445 AI-assisted case summary: Martha Jane Ritchie filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on November 14, 2017. The respondent conceded that her GBS was consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table for GBS following a seasonal flu vaccination, and that she met the criteria for a presumption of causation. The respondent also agreed that her injury sequelae lasted for more than six months. Consequently, a ruling on entitlement was issued on December 10, 2019, finding her entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on July 28, 2023, the parties filed a proffer on award of compensation. The respondent recommended an award of $634,445.85, which included $18,803.85 for life care expenses in the first year, $397,642.00 for past and future lost earnings, and $218,000.00 for pain and suffering. The proffer also included an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract for future life care items. Martha Jane Ritchie agreed with the proffered award. A decision awarding damages was issued on August 31, 2023, granting the lump sum payment and the annuity as recommended. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01773-0 Date issued/filed: 2020-01-10 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/10/2019) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1773V UNPUBLISHED MARTHA JANE RITCHIE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 10, 2019 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent. Anthony P. Ellis, Ellis Law Group, PLLC, Louisville, KY, for petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On November 16, 2018, Martha Jane Ritchie 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 Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 14, 2017. Petition at Introduction, ¶ 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 10, 2019, 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 states that “petitioner’s alleged GBS is 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 2 consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table for GBS following the seasonal flu vaccination. It is respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner’s records show that she suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months after vaccination. 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 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01773-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-08-31 Pages: 8 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/31/2023) regarding 60 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1773V MARTHA JANE RITCHIE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 31, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nathan Williams, Campbellsville, KY, Attorney for Petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 16, 2018, Martha Jane Ritchie 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 Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 14, 2017. Petition at Introduction, ¶ 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 10, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. On July 28, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded a total of $634,445.85, consisting of $18,803.85 for life care expenses to be incurred during the first year after judgment, $397,642.00 for Petitioner’s past and future lost earnings, $218,000.00 in actual and projected pain and suffering, and an amount sufficient to purchase the annuity 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 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 8 contract as set forth in the attached Proffer. Proffer at 1-5. In the Proffer, 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 attached Proffer, I award Petitioner the following: A. A lump sum payment of $634,445.85, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($18,803.85), lost earnings ($397,642.00), and pain and suffering ($218,000.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Martha Jane Ritchie, and B. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the conditions described in the attached Proffer, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the chart at Appendix A, attached to the Proffer, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased. These amounts represent 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 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) MARTHA JANE RITCHIE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 18-1773V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On November 16, 2018, Martha Jane Ritchie (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on November 14, 2017. Petition at Introduction, ¶ 2. On December 10, 2019, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Rule 4(c) Report conceding that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause. ECF No. 31. Accordingly, on December 10, 2019, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to vaccine compensation for GBS following the influenza vaccine she received on November 14, 2017. ECF No. 31. Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 4 of 8 I. Items of Compensation A. Life Care Items Respondent engaged life care planner Laura E. Fox, MSN, BSN, RN, CLCP, and petitioner engaged life care planner Laura J. Lampton, RN, BSN, CRRN, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of petitioner’s future vaccine-injury related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine related” is as described in the respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. All items of compensation identified in respondent’s life care plan are supported by the evidence, and are illustrated by the chart entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Martha Jane Ritchie, attached hereto as Tab A. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in respondent’s life care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab A. Petitioner agrees. B. Lost Earnings The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, Martha Jane Ritchie has suffered past loss of earnings and will suffer future loss of earnings as a result of her vaccine related injury. Therefore, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded lost earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for Martha Jane Ritchie’s past and future lost earnings is $397,642.00. Petitioner agrees. C. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $218,000.00 in actual and projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any award for projected pain and suffering has been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. 2 Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 5 of 8 II. Form of the Award The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a combination of lump sum payments and future annuity payments as described below, and request that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:1 A. A lump sum payment of $634,445.85, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($18,803.85), lost earnings ($397,642.00), and pain and suffering ($218,000.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Martha Jane Ritchie. B. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract,2 subject to the conditions described below, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the chart at Tab A, attached hereto, paid to the life insurance company3 from 1 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 medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 2 In respondent’s discretion, respondent may purchase one or more annuity contracts from one or more life insurance companies. 3 The Life Insurance Company must have a minimum of $250,000,000 capital and surplus, exclusive of any mandatory security valuation reserve. The Life Insurance Company must have one of the following ratings from two of the following rating organizations: a. A.M. Best Company: A++, A+, A+g, A+p, A+r, or A+s; b. Moody's Investor Service Claims Paying Rating: Aa3, Aa2, Aa1, or Aaa; c. Standard and Poor's Corporation Insurer Claims-Paying Ability Rating: AA-, AA, AA+, or AAA; d. Fitch Credit Rating Company, Insurance Company Claims Paying Ability Rating: AA-, AA, AA+, or AAA. 3 Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 6 of 8 which the annuity will be purchased.4 Compensation for Year Two (beginning on the first anniversary of the date of judgment) and all subsequent years shall be provided through respondent’s purchase of an annuity, which annuity shall make payments directly to petitioner, Martha Jane Ritchie, only so long as petitioner is alive at the time a particular payment is due. At the Secretary’s sole discretion, the periodic payments may be provided to petitioner in monthly, quarterly, annual, or other installments. The “annual amounts” set forth in the chart at Tab A describe only the total yearly sum to be paid to petitioner and do not require that the payment be made in one annual installment. 1. Growth Rate Respondent proffers that a four percent (4%) growth rate should be applied to all non- medical life care items, and a five percent (5%) growth rate should be applied to all medical life care items. Thus, the benefits illustrated in the chart at Tab A that are to be paid through annuity payments should grow as follows: four percent (4%) compounded annually from the date of judgment for non-medical items, and five percent (5%) compounded annually from the date of judgment for medical items. Petitioner agrees. 2. Life-contingent annuity Petitioner will continue to receive the annuity payments from the Life Insurance Company only so long as she, Martha Jane Ritchie, is alive at the time that a particular payment is due. Written notice shall be provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Life Insurance Company within twenty (20) days of Martha Jane Ritchie’s death. 3. Guardianship Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. 4 Petitioner authorizes the disclosure of certain documents filed by the petitioner in this case consistent with the Privacy Act and the routine uses described in the National Vaccine Injury 4 Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 7 of 8 III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment A. Lump Sum paid to petitioner, Martha Jane Ritchie: $634,445.85 B. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described above in section II.B. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division ALEXIS B. BABCOCK Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/Colleen C. Hartley COLLEEN C. HARTLEY 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) 616-3644 Dated: July 28, 2023 Compensation Program System of Records, No. 09-15-0056. 5 Case 1:18-vv-01773-UNJ Document 64 Filed 08/31/23 Page 8 of 8 Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Martha Jane Ritchie Page 1 of 1 Lump Sum Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation ITEMS OF COMPENSATION G.R. * M Year 1 Years 2-15 Years 16-25 Years 26-Life 2023 2024-2037 2038-2047 2048-Life Medicare Part B Premium 5% M 1,978.80 1,978.80 Medicare Part B Deductible 5% 226.00 226.00 226.00 226.00 Medicare Part D 5% 247.20 247.20 247.20 247.20 Primary Care Physician 5% * 90.60 Physiatrist 5% * 45.00 Psychologist/Counselor 4% * 460.80 92.16 92.16 92.16 Gastroenterologist 5% * 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 PT/Aquatic Therapy 4% 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 Warm Water Pool 4% 150.00 150.00 Wellness Program 4% 447.00 398.00 Household Services 4% M 9,747.46 9,747.46 9,747.46 9,747.46 Bathroom Modifications 4% 5,000.00 Cane 4% 39.95 4.00 4.00 4.00 Prescription Medications 5% * 120.00 120.00 120.00 240.00 Nortriptyline 5% * Miralax 4% 245.64 245.64 245.64 245.64 Wellbutrin 5% * Duloxetine 5% * Tramadol 5% * Lost Earnings 397,642.00 Pain and Suffering 218,000.00 Annual Totals 634,445.85 13,350.26 10,823.46 11,079.06 Note: Compensation Year 1 consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment. Compensation Year 2 consists of the 12 month period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of judgment. As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioner for Yr 1 life care expenses ($18,803.85), lost earnings ($397,642.00), and pain and suffering ($218,000.00): $634,445.85. Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment. Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated above in column G.R., compounded annually from the date of judgment. Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare. Items denoted with an "M" payable in twelve monthly installments totaling the annual amount indicated. TAB A ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01773-cl-extra-10734872 Date issued/filed: 2024-07-01 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268282 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1773V MARTHA JANE RITCHIE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 30, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nathan Williams, Campbellsville, KY, for Petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On November 16, 2018, Martha Jane Ritchie 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 Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on November 14, 2017. Petition, ECF No. 1. On July 31, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 60. 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 $54,649.20 (representing $46,339.20 in fees plus $8,310.00 in costs). Application for Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed February 9, 2024, ECF No. 66. Counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on February 12, 2024, reporting that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s 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. 68. 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 listed below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to 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 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 2 ATTORNEY FEES The hourly rates requested for the relevant attorneys and paralegals through the end of 2022 are reasonable and consistent with prior determinations and shall therefore be adopted herein. Petitioner has also requested hourly rates for attorney Nathan Williams as follows: $460 for time billed in 2023 (representing an increase of $74 from the prior year), and $465 for time billed in 2024. ECF No. 66-2. These rates require adjustment. In his affidavit, Mr. Williams states that he received his Juris Doctorate degree in 2007, and had as of 2020 “been practicing as an attorney for 13 years.” (ECF No. 66-1 at 1), placing him in the rage of attorneys with 11 - 19 years’ experience based on the OSM Attorneys’ Fees Schedules. 3 I incorporate by reference all of the explanatory notes contained in these rate schedules. Although Mr. Williams’s requested rates fall within the appropriate range for an attorney of his lever of experience (as reflected in OSM’s schedule), the specific rates requested would come from the higher end of the range. But it would be improper for Mr. Williams to receive rates established for comparably-experienced counsel who also have more lengthy experience in the Program than Mr. Williams. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Services, No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) (stating the following factors are paramount in deciding a reasonable forum hourly rate: experience in the Vaccine Program, overall legal experience, the quality of work performed, and the reputation in the legal community and community at large). Accordingly, based on the factors relevant to determining proper hourly rates for Program attorneys, I find it reasonable to award Mr. Williams the lesser rate at $406 per hour for all time billed in 2023, and $426 per hour for all time billed in 2024, representing an increase of $20 over 2023. This results in a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded herein of $1,175.10. 4 3 The Vaccine Program’s Attorney’s Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules are available on the U.S. Court of Federal Claim’s website: http://www.cof c.uscourts.gov/node/2914. 4 This amount consists of ($460 - $406 = $54 x 18.80 hrs. = $1,015.20) + ($465 - $426 = $39 x 4.10 hrs. = $159.90) = $1,175.10. 3 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has requested $8,310.00 in litigation costs, which include the obtaining of medical records, shipping costs, the Court’s filing fee, and expert costs. ECF No. 66- 5. The amount requested in expert costs include a flat fee of $3,000.00 for the work of Laura Lampton for the preparation of a traditional life care plan, and a flat fee of $4,800.00 for the expert work of Sara Ford for conducting a vocational economic assessment in this matter. ECF No. 66-5 at 1-6. However, the retainer agreements submitted in support of these expert costs do not meet the Vaccine Program’s requirements, because they do not specify how many hours the experts expended on each task, nor set forth a proposed hourly rate for each expert’s work. Id. Rather, the retainer agreements only state that “[a]ny subsequent reviews or addenda will be charged at the hourly consultation rates listed below, $410 for court and deposition time and $290 for consultation time including travel and wait time.” Id. at 4. Per the Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, “[t]he application for payment of experts’ fees and costs must contain the same supporting documentation that is required for attorneys’ fees and costs. In particular, the expert’s services must be identified with particularity in contemporaneous, dated records indicating the amount of time spent on each task…With regard to attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, the particular tasks for which fees are claimed, the amount of time spent on that task, the person who performed the task, and that person’s billed hourly rate must be identified in contemporaneous, dated records.” See Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at 75-78 (emphasis added). 5 It is incumbent upon counsel to apprise any and all experts they retain regarding the specific requirements for preparing invoices in the Vaccine Program. Furthermore, Petitioner’s counsel must provide sufficient evidence to warrant approval of an expert’s hourly rate. See Vogler v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-424V, 2013 WL 1635860, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 24, 2013); O’Neill, 2015 WL 2399211, at *2, *15. This includes the expert’s education, training, and experience, including experience in the Vaccine Program, and the expert’s area of expertise, including rates traditionally charged by comparable experts in the Program. Vogler, 2013 WL 1635860, at *2; Allen v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-051V, 2013 WL 5229796, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2013). 5 The guidelines f or Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program can be f ound at: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine guidelines 20240318.pdf 4 Despite the above, I will in this case reimburse these expert-related costs in full (along with all other costs requested). But Petitioner’s counsel should be aware that any future requests for experts costs may result in a curtailed award if the supporting documents do not meet the Vaccine Program’s requirements. 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. I award a total of $53,474.10 (representing $45,164.10 in fees plus $8,310.00 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Nathan Williams. 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. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6 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. 5