VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01912 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01912 Petitioner: Donald Perry Filed: 2018-12-13 Decided: 2024-10-01 Vaccine: varicella; tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) Vaccination date: 2016-12-13; 2016-12-15 Condition: shingles and transverse myelitis Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 52500 AI-assisted case summary: On December 13, 2018, Donald Perry filed a petition alleging that a varicella vaccine administered on December 13, 2016 and a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine administered on December 15, 2016 caused shingles and transverse myelitis. Respondent denied that either vaccine caused Mr. Perry's shingles, transverse myelitis, any other injury, or his current condition. The public stipulation decision does not describe onset, neurologic findings, imaging, hospitalization, treatment, or expert testimony. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen adopted the parties' stipulation on October 1, 2024. Mr. Perry received $52,500.00 as a lump sum payable to him for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. The stipulated resolution compensated the claim without making public findings on whether either vaccine caused the shingles or transverse myelitis. A later March 24, 2025 decision addressed final attorneys' fees and costs. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; varicella vaccine December 13, 2016 and Tdap vaccine December 15, 2016; alleged shingles and transverse myelitis. COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied causation and sequelae; public merits text lacks clinical chronology. Award $52,500.00 lump sum. SM Gowen October 1, 2024. Petition filed December 13, 2018. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01912-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-21 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/01/2024) regarding 101 DECISION on Stipulation Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: October 1, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * DONALD PERRY, * * Petitioner, * No. 18-1912V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Scott R. Doody, Law Offices of Scott R. Doody, Forth Worth, TX., for petitioner. Mary E. Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On December 13, 2018, Donald Perry (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the varicella vaccine on December 13, 2016, and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines on December 15, 2016, he suffered from shingles and transverse myelitis. Id. On September 30, 2024, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 100). Respondent denies that the varicella and Tdap vaccines were the cause of petitioner’s shingles and/or transverse myelitis, any other injury or petitioner’s current condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their above- stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 7 and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to the petitioner according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. The stipulation provides: 1) A lump sum of $52,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2 Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 3 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS DONALD PERRY, Petitioner, No. 18-1912V Special Master Gowen v. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Donald Perry (“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 a varicella vaccine and a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”), which vaccines are contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a varicella vaccine on December 13, 2016, and a Tdap vaccine on December 15, 2016. 3. The vaccines were administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered shingles and transverse myelitis (“TM”) that were caused-in-fact by the varicella and Tdap vaccines. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner’s behalf as a result of the alleged injury. Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged shingles and/or TM, or their residual effects, were caused-in-fact by the varicella and/or Tdap vaccines; and denies that the varicella and/or Tdap vaccines caused petitioner any other injury or petitioner’s current condition. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of $52,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. 10. Petitioner and petitioner’s attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 5 of 7 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner’s individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the varicella and/or Tdap vaccinations administered on December 13, 2016, and December 15, 2016, respectively, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about December 13, 2018, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 18-1912V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 3 Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 6 of 7 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties’ settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties’ respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the varicella and/or Tdap vaccines caused petitioner’s alleged injuries or any other injury or petitioner’s current disabilities. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION / / / / / / / / / / 4 Case 1:18-vv-01912-UNJ Document 105 Filed 10/21/24 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01912-cl-extra-10733948 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-21 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267358 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: October 1, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * DONALD PERRY, * * Petitioner, * No. 18-1912V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Scott R. Doody, Law Offices of Scott R. Doody, Forth Worth, TX., for petitioner. Mary E. Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On December 13, 2018, Donald Perry (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the varicella vaccine on December 13, 2016, and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines on December 15, 2016, he suffered from shingles and transverse myelitis. Id. On September 30, 2024, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 100). Respondent denies that the varicella and Tdap vaccines were the cause of petitioner’s shingles and/or transverse myelitis, any other injury or petitioner’s current condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their above- stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to the petitioner according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. The stipulation provides: 1) A lump sum of $52,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS DONALD PERRY, Petitioner, No. 18-1912V Special Master Gowen v. ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Donald Perry (“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 a varicella vaccine and a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”), which vaccines are contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a varicella vaccine on December 13, 2016, and a Tdap vaccine on December 15, 2016. 3. The vaccines were administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered shingles and transverse myelitis (“TM”) that were caused-in-fact by the varicella and Tdap vaccines. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner’s behalf as a result of the alleged injury. 6. Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged shingles and/or TM, or their residual effects, were caused-in-fact by the varicella and/or Tdap vaccines; and denies that the varicella and/or Tdap vaccines caused petitioner any other injury or petitioner’s current condition. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of $52,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(1), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. 10. Petitioner and petitioner’s attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner’s individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the varicella and/or Tdap vaccinations administered on December 13, 2016, and December 15, 2016, respectively, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about December 13, 2018, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 18-1912V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 3 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties’ settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties’ respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the varicella and/or Tdap vaccines caused petitioner’s alleged injuries or any other injury or petitioner’s current disabilities. 18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION / / / / / / / / / / 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01912-cl-extra-11217099 Date issued/filed: 2025-12-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10750514 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 24, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * DONALD PERRY, * * Petitioner, * No. 18-1912V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Scott R. Doody, Law Offices of Scott R. Doody, Fort Worth, TX., for petitioner. Mary E. Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION FINAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On October 29, 2024, Donald Perry (“petitioner”), filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner’s Fees Motion (“Pet’r Fees App.”) (ECF No. 107). For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT petitioner’s motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs and award a total of $64,673.41. I. Procedural History On December 13, 2018, petitioner filed his claim in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2, alleging that as a result of receiving the varicella vaccine on December 13, 20216 and the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on December 15, 2016, he suffered from shingles and transverse myelitis. Petition (ECF No. 1). On September 30, 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 2024, respondent file a stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on December 1, 2024. See Stipulation (ECF No. 100); Decision (ECF No. 101). On October 29, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting a total of $58,725.25 in attorneys’ fees and $10,269.56 in attorneys’ costs. Pet’r Fees App. at 5-19. Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion on October 30, 2024, stating that he is satisfied “the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case,” and requested that the special master exercise his discretion to determine a reasonable award. Respondent (“Resp’t”) Response (ECF No. 108). Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Analysis Under the Vaccine Act, the special master may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for a petition that does not result in an award of compensation but was filed in good faith and supported by a reasonable basis. § 300aa–15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioners “bea[r] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1993). Adequate proof of the claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is filed. Id. at 484 n. 1. The special master has the discretion to reduce awards sua sponte, independent of enumerated objections from the respondent. Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 208–09 (Fed. Cl. 2009); Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008), aff'd No. 99–537V, 2008 WL 2066611 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2008). a. Attorneys’ Hourly Rates Petitioner is requesting a total of $58,725.25 in attorneys’ fees, for work performed by counsel, Mr. Scott Doody. Mr. Doody provided an invoice that outlined his hours worked from 2017 through 2024 on this matter and the hourly rate he charged for such tasks. See Pet’r Fees App at 5-19. The hourly rates that petitioner’s counsel charged from 2017 through 2018 are consistent with rates that Mr. Doody has previously been awarded for work performed in other Vaccine Program cases. See Brierton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1357V, 2018 WL 6539750 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 31, 2018) (awarding an hourly rate of $315 for 2017 and $325.00 for work performed in 2018). Petitioner also requested that Mr. Doody be awarded the following rates for 2019 through 2024: $375.00 for 2019; $400.00 for 2020; $425.00 for 2021; $450.00 for 2022; $475.00 for 2023; and $500.00 for 2024. Given that Mr. Doody has been awarded OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rates in the past, the OSM Forum Hourly Rates shall apply in this matter. This warrants an adjustment of counsel’s requested rates for 2019-2024. 2 Petitioner’s counsel only provides a limited affidavit, stating that he has over 20 years of experience and that he graduated from the University of Baltimore School of Law.3 Pet’r Fees App. at 3. In previous Vaccine Cases, Mr. Doody was awarded hourly rates for attorneys with 11-19 years of experience. See Brierton, at *3. From 2019-2021, Mr. Doody would still be in the same range of experience for OSM Attorneys’ Forum Rates. Given some of the filing issues that Mr. Doody experienced early on this case, such as filing and obtaining medical records to support petitioner’s claim and that the requested rate for 2021 exceeds the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Rates, I will adjust Mr. Doody’s rates. Accordingly, I award him an hourly rate of $360.00 for 2019; $375.00 for 2020; $400.00 for 2021. For work performed between 2022- 2024, Mr. Doody is eligible for OSM Forum Hourly Rates for attorneys with 20-30 years of experience. However, the hourly rates he requested for 2022-2024 are excessive compared to the work performed and his experience in the Vaccine Program, therefore, I will adjust the rates to the following: $427.00 for 2022; $435.00 for 2023; and $450.00 for 2024. Accordingly, this will result in an overall reduction of attorney’s fees of $2,821.40. b. Hours Expended Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxon, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). In reducing an award of fees, the goal is to achieve rough justice, and therefore a special master may take into account their overall sense of a case and may use estimates when reducing an award. See Florence v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-255V, 2016 WL 6459592, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). It is well established that an application for fees and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time billed so that a special master may determine, from the application and the case file, whether the amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760 (1989); Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468. Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and costs claimed. Id. at *8. 1. Excessive Billing The undersigned has previously reduced the fees paid to petitioners due to excessive and duplicative billing. See Ericzon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-654V, 2016 WL 7212323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 2, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by 20 percent), mot. for rev. denied, 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (2016). After a review of the billing log, I have determined that a reduction in the number of hours requested is appropriate for excessive billing. For example, on January 28, 2019, counsel spent 0.2 hours reviewing a notice of appearance by respondent; counsel spent another 0.2 hours reading an administrative notice regarding an upgrade to CM/ECF; 0.2 hours on September 23, 2019 reviewing a non-pdf order; 0.2 review notice of appearance on 09/09/2020; 0.6 hour spent on drafting and filing a motion for extension of time on 6/27/2022, but no such extension was 3 According to a search of the State Bar of Texas, Mr. Doody obtained his Texas law license in 2002. 3 filed; 0.1 hours on 6/17/2022 for an “Email” only no description was included; 0.1 hours spent on “email” again with no description on November 7, 2023; 0.1 hours on “email” with no description or relevance for this case on February 16, 2024; 0.2 hours spent reviewing a non-pdf scheduling order on May 28, 2024. Many of the items listed include reviewing entries on the docket that do not require an opening of a separate document and therefore, reviewing such order should be relatively easy and quick. Further, it appears that some tasks such as “email” are too vague to determine what or how such email is related to petitioner’s case. Accordingly, I will reduce petitioner’s fee request by $500.00 for the excessive billing. 2. Administrative Tasks and Paralegal Work “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should be billed at an attorney’s rate. Riggins, 2009 WL 3319818, at *2. [T]he rate at wh/ich 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., XX-XXX, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). There are multiple entries that counsel billed at an attorney rate that can be considered paralegals tasks and should be billed at such rate. For example: 03/28/2017-Email: Email [petitioner] a new client case intake sheet; 03/28/2017-Draft document: draft welcome letter; draft all HIPPA Authorizations for [petitioner] review and signature: 0.2; 3/29/2018-Draft document: draft medical provider list with estimated dates of service; set up medical record order for [petitioner]; 12/31/2021-File expert report (this was repeated twice); 1/25/2022- Draft documents: Draft letter to Court Clerk; Draft Notice of Filing Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17; draft and file notice of filing exhibit 16 and 17; 06/23/2022—Draft notice of Change of Address; 04/01/2024—Document Review: Follow up with regards to medical records requests. Pet’r Fees. App. at 8-16. Accordingly, I will reduce petitioner’s attorney’s fees request by $700.00 for billing work at an attorney’s rate that should have been billed at a paralegal rate. Similarly, “[b]illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program.” Mostovoy, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (citing Rochester, 18 Cl. Ct. at 387). Further, secretarial work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 18 CL. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Dingle v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-579V, 2014 WL 630473, at 4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 24, 2014). Petitioner’s counsel also billed for tasks considered administrative, including sending correspondence, creating and updating internal files, mailing payments, and confirming appointments. Examples of these entries include the following: 03/28/2017-Admin: Set up new Case file; 01/04/2021-Admin: Update contacts in file; 08/09/2021-Email to set up [teleconference] with expert; 08/31/2021-Email to expert to set up [teleconference] for Wednesday afternoon; 10/01/2021-email to client with new med. Authorization; 12/12/2023- Added Document: [Petitioner] Demand Letter of Dec. 12, 2023; 03/19/2024-Added document: Draft-[Petitioner] Supplemental Affidavit; 04/03/2024-Review medical record and pay record invoice; 04/08/2024-Review medical record order and pay fees; 06/17/2024-Called client to set up meeting today. Accordingly, I shall reduce the request for attorney’s fees by $300.00. c. Attorneys’ Costs 4 Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner is requesting $10,269.56 in attorneys’ costs. See Pet’r Fee App. at 19. These costs include obtaining medical records, the Court filing fee, and fees for an expert. The largest attorney’s cost is the fee for expert, Dr. Matthew Imperioli. Id. at 20. Dr. Imperioli charged an hourly rate of $550.00 and performed a total of 10.3 hours of work, for a total of $5,675.00. Dr. Imperioli drafted one expert report, which I had reviewed and found it helpful in resolving this matter. Accordingly, his requested fee shall be awarded. Further, the other attorney’s costs are well documented, and invoices accompanied the fee request. Accordingly, petitioner’s attorney’s costs shall be paid in full. III. Conclusion In accordance with the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED. I find that Petitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs as follows: Attorneys’ Fees Requested $58,725.25 (Reduction of Fees) - $4,321.40 Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $54,403.85 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $10,269.56 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $10,269.56 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $64,673.41 Accordingly, petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $64,673.41 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4 s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 5