VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01268 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01268 Petitioner: Barbara Cerasuolo Filed: 2020-09-24 Decided: 2023-08-01 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-09-25 Condition: cellulitis Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 46635 AI-assisted case summary: Barbara Cerasuolo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine and a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered on September 25, 2017, caused her to suffer from a shoulder injury and cellulitis. Initially, she alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) that falls within the Vaccine Injury Table. However, she later amended her petition to allege that the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination caused her to suffer from cellulitis. The respondent conceded that the influenza vaccine caused her cellulitis and that the case met the statutory requirements for compensation, including timely filing, receipt of the vaccine in the United States, and residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent did not concede the SIRVA claim. The Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement on February 28, 2023, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on May 31, 2023, the respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation. The parties agreed to a lump sum payment of $46,635.14, which included $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,635.14 for past unreimbursable expenses. The Special Master issued a Decision Awarding Damages on August 1, 2023, awarding the stipulated amount. The case proceeded as a Table claim for cellulitis caused by the flu vaccine. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01268-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-05-03 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 2/28/2023) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (rig) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/03/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: February 28, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BARBARA CERASUOLO, * No. 20-1268V * Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ruling on Entitlement; Influenza AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Flu”) Vaccine; Cellulitis * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James M. Merrigan, Rawson, Merrigan & Litner, LLP, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Catherine E. Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On September 24, 2020, Barbara Cerasuolo (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that an influenza (“flu”) vaccine and a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered on September 25, 2017, caused her to suffer from “a shoulder injury that falls within the ‘Vaccine Injury Table’ and is compensable.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an amended petition alleging that her pneumococcal conjugate vaccination caused her to suffer from cellulitis. Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 28. On November 7, 2022, Respondent filed his report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c). Resp’t’s Report, ECF No. 32. Respondent stated that “a preponderance of evidence establishes that [P]etitioner’s cellulitis was caused in fact by her September 25, 2017 flu vaccine and that her cellulitis was not due to factors unrelated to the administration of that vaccine.” Id. at 7. Respondent further stated that “[t]he records also show that this case was timely filed, that 1 This Ruling shall be posted 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted ruling. If, upon review, the I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (“the Vaccine Act” or “Act”). 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 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/03/23 Page 2 of 2 [P]etitioner received her flu vaccination in the United States, and that [P]etitioner satisfied the statutory severity requirements insofar as [she] suffered the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. Respondent noted that “the scope of damages to be awarded is limited to [P]etitioner’s vaccine-related cellulitis and its related sequelae only.” Id. Respondent did not concede that Petitioner suffered from a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. at 6 n.2. Petitioner indicated via email that she accepts Respondent’s terms regarding entitlement for cellulitis but not for SIRVA. See Informal Comm., docketed Feb. 22, 2023. A special master may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to compensation based upon the record. A hearing is not required. §300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). In light of Respondent’s concession and a review of the record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. This matter shall now proceed to the damages phase. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01268-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-08-01 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/26/2023) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (rig) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 26, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BARBARA CERASUOLO, * No. 20-1268V * Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James M. Merrigan, Rawson, Merrigan & Litner, LLP, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Catherine E. Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 24, 2020, Barbara Cerasuolo (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that an influenza (“flu”) vaccine and a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered on September 25, 2017, caused her to suffer from “a shoulder injury that falls within the ‘Vaccine Injury Table’ and is compensable.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an amended petition alleging that her pneumococcal conjugate vaccination caused her to suffer from cellulitis. Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 28. On November 7, 2022, Respondent filed his report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c). Resp’t’s Report, ECF No. 32. Respondent stated that “a preponderance of evidence establishes that [P]etitioner’s cellulitis was caused in fact by her September 25, 2017 flu vaccine and that her cellulitis was not due to factors unrelated to the administration of that vaccine.” Id. at 7. 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 (“the Vaccine Act” or “Act”). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 1 Case 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 5 Respondent further stated that “[t]he records also show that this case was timely filed, that [P]etitioner received her flu vaccination in the United States, and that [P]etitioner satisfied the statutory severity requirements insofar as [she] suffered the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. Respondent noted that “the scope of damages to be awarded is limited to [P]etitioner’s vaccine-related cellulitis and its related sequelae only.” Id. Respondent did not concede that Petitioner suffered from a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. at 6 n.2. On February 28, 2023, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement, ECF No. 33. On May 31, 2023, Respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”). Proffer, ECF No. 37. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, attached as Appendix A, the undersigned awards Petitioner: [A] lump sum payment of $46,635.14, [representing $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,635.14 for past unreimbursable expenses,] in the form of a check payable to [P]etitioner. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which [P]etitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Proffer at 2. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/01/23 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) BARBARA CERASUOLO, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 20-1268V v. ) Special Master Sanders ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On September 24, 2020, Barbara Cerasuolo (“petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“the Vaccine Act” or “the Act”), as amended. Petitioner alleged that her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine and pneumococcal (“pneumonia”) vaccine on September 25, 2017, 1 caused her to develop a left-sided Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). ECF No. 2 at 1. On August 1, 2022, petitioner filed an amended petition, in which she alleged that the pneumonia vaccine caused in fact her cellulitis. ECF No. 28 at 1 (second amended petition). On November 7, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation 1 Petitioner alleged that the pneumonia vaccine she received was a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. See ECF No. 2 at 1. However, petitioner’s vaccination record reveals that she received Pneumovax 23, a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, which is not a covered vaccine under the Act. See Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1 at 2; National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Addition of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 66 Fed. Reg. 28166 (May 22, 2001) (“Because the CDC only recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccines to the Secretary for routine administration to children, polysaccharide-type pneumococcal vaccines are not covered under the VICP or included on the Table.”). Petitioner is nevertheless entitled to compensation due to her receipt of the flu vaccine, which is a covered vaccine under the Act and is included in the Vaccine Injury Table. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (Vaccine Injury Table). Case 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/01/23 Page 4 of 5 under the terms of the Act for a cellulitis injury, caused in fact by petitioner’s receipt of the flu vaccine on September 25, 2017.2 ECF No. 32. On February 28, 2023, the Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 33. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $45,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $1,635.14. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:3 a lump sum payment of $46,635.14, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 2 Respondent does not concede that petitioner suffered a Table SIRVA. ECF No. 32 at 6 n.2. 3 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 lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01268-UNJ Document 40 Filed 08/01/23 Page 5 of 5 III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Barbara Cerasuolo: $46,635.14 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 LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Catherine E. Stolar CATHERINE E. STOLAR 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) 353-3299 Fax: (202) 616-4310 Email: catherine.stolar@usdoj.gov DATED: May 31, 2023 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01268-cl-extra-10822920 Date issued/filed: 2025-03-13 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10356332 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: January 31, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BARBARA CERASUOLO, * No. 20-1268V * Special Master Young Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James M. Merrigan, Rawson, Merrigan & Litner, LLP, Boston, MA, for Petitioner; Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On September 24, 2020, Barbara Cerasuolo (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2018)2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleged that an influenza (“flu”) vaccine and a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered on September 25, 2017, caused her to suffer from “a shoulder injury that falls within the ‘Vaccine Injury Table’ and is compensable.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an amended petition alleging that her pneumococcal conjugate vaccination caused her to suffer from cellulitis. Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 28. On May 31, 2023, the parties filed a proffer, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on June 26, 2023. (ECF No. 38). 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. Petitioner untimely filed her first motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, which was subsequently stricken; however, petitioner was then granted leave to file another motion for attorneys’ fees and costs out of time. On May 17, 2024, Petitioner filed a second motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [hereinafter “Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”], ECF No. 45. Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $13,113.68, representing $12,205.50 in attorneys’ fees and $908.18 in attorneys’ costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of her petition. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. 3. Respondent responded to the motion on May 29, 2024, stating that Respondent “is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, ECF No. 45. Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a proffer, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347–48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348. It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991) (“[T]he reviewing court must grant the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however, should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id. 2 A. Hourly Rate The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules can be accessed online.3 Petitioner requests the following rates for the work of his counsel: for Mr. James Merrigan, $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $420.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $475.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $525.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Mr. Chris Fletcher, $225.00 per hour for time billed in 2018; and for Ms. Nicole Avitable, $225.00 per hour for time billed in 2018 and 2019; and $300.00 per hour for time billed in 2020. These rates require adjustment. Mr. Merrigan was previously awarded the following rates for his work in the Vaccine Program: $390 per hour for 2019; $415 per hour for 2020; $430 per hour for 2021; $440 per hour for 2022; and $475 per hour for 2023. See Sexton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19- 1919V, 2022 WL 1863925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 14, 2022); Finn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1506V, 2024 WL 5002926 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 4, 2024). I hereby reduce Mr. Merrigan’s rates consistent with what he was previously awarded in the Vaccine Program. This results in a reduction of $360.00.4 The requested rates for attorneys Mr. Fletcher and Ms. Avitable, as well as the rates requested for the paralegals, are reasonable and consistent with what has previously been awarded, and I find no reason to reduce these rates and award them herein. B. Reasonable Number of Hours 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.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Upon review, I find the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and upon review, I do not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,845.50. 3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly- rate-fee-schedules. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323. 4 This amount is calculated as: ($400 - $390 = $10 x 1.60 hrs.) + ($420 - $415 = $5 x 2.90 hrs.) + ($450 - $430 = $20 x 5.80 hrs.) + ($475 - $440 = $35 x 2.10 hrs.) + ($525 - $475 = $50 x 2.80 hrs.) = $360.00 3 C. Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a total of $908.18 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. 2. These costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs in the amount of $908.18. II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2018), I have reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, I find that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows: Attorneys’ Fees Requested $12,205.50 (Reduction to Fees) ($360.00) Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $11,845.50 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $908.18 (Reduction to Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $908.18 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $12,753.68 Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $12,753.68, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, 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 is directed to enter judgment herewith.5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina Sanders Young Herbrina Sanders Young Special Master 5 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. 4