VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01291 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01291 Petitioner: Matthew Miller Filed: 2020-09-30 Decided: 2023-09-26 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-10-10 Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 55944 AI-assisted case summary: Matthew Miller filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 10, 2018, he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The case proceeded as a Table claim, meaning the injury was presumed to be caused by the vaccine if it met the Table criteria. The parties disputed entitlement and damages. The court found that Mr. Miller's injury met the criteria for a Table SIRVA, including pain and limited range of motion within 48 hours of vaccination, and that there was no other condition to explain his symptoms. Respondent contested the onset timeframe and the limitation of pain to the vaccinated shoulder, but the court found these objections unpersuasive. The court awarded Mr. Miller a total of $55,944.24, comprising $55,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $944.24 for actual unreimbursable expenses, including massage therapy which Respondent had opposed. The award was based on the specific circumstances of Mr. Miller's case, considering the mildness of his pain, limited physical therapy, and eventual recovery. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01291-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-09-26 Pages: 9 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/18/2023) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 9 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1291V MATTHEW MILLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 18, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer,1 Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Rachelle Bishop,2 U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES3 On September 30, 2020, Matthew Miller filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.4 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that after receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 10, 2018, he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petition at 1. The case was assigned 1 Although Ronald Homer is attorney of record, Nathaniel Enos appeared on behalf of Petitioner at the expedited hearing. 2 Although Rachelle Bishop is attorney of record, Bridget Corridon appeared on behalf of Respondent at the expedited hearing. 3 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 4 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 (2012). Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 9 to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). The parties disputed both entitlement and an appropriate award of damages, so the matter was submitted for an SPU Motions Day hearing. For the reasons described below, and after holding a brief hearing on entitlement and damages in this matter, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation, and I award damages in the total amount of $55,944.24 (representing $55,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $944.24 for actual unreimbursable expenses). I. Relevant Procedural History The Petition was accompanied by the medical records and the signed declaration required under the Vaccine Act as Exhibits (“Exs.”) 1-6. On October 8, 2020, the case file was deemed to be sufficiently complete, and it was assigned to SPU. ECF No. 11. While awaiting Respondent’s medical review, Petitioner conveyed a demand on September 7, 2021. ECF No. 26. Nearly thirteen (13) months after the case was assigned to SPU – on November 1, 2021 - Respondent filed a status report indicating he was willing to engage in settlement discussions. ECF No. 28. However, the parties reached an impasse on May 5, 2022. ECF No. 34. On June 8, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, ECF No. 35, in which he argued that preponderant evidence did not support a Table SIRVA. I directed the parties to file sequential briefing on the disputed entitlement issues and (in the event that Petitioner prevailed) damages. Scheduling Order filed July 20, 2022, ECF No. 36; Petitioner’s Motion filed Sept. 6, 2022, ECF No. 39; Respondent’s Response, filed Oct. 13, 2022, ECF No. 40; Petitioner’s Reply, filed Nov. 4, 2022, ECF No. 42. On June 7, 2023, I proposed the case for an expedited hearing to take place on July 14, 2023, at which time I would decide the disputed issues based on all evidence filed to date and any oral argument from counsel. ECF No. 45. The parties agreed, and the “Motions Day” hearing took place as scheduled. ECF No. 46; Minute Entry dated July 17, 2023.5 During the hearing, I orally ruled on Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation, and then made an oral damages determination. This Decision memorializes those findings and determinations. 5 As of the date of this Decision, the transcript of the July 16, 2023, Motions Day hearing has not been filed, but my oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 9 II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement A. Authority Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A). In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or by medical opinion. Id. To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented, which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90– 2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,6 a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a). Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows: 6 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). 3 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 4 of 9 Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction. SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following: (i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; (ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame; (iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and (iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy, brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy). 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017). B. Factual Findings Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA Respondent first contests that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours after the vaccine’s administration. Response at 9; see also 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (requiring onset within this timeframe to meet the Table SIRVA listing). He emphasizes that shoulder pain was not documented in two medical records; the first documentation of shoulder pain, beginning 72 days post-vaccination, is insufficiently vague; and a treating provider’s later recollection of Petitioner’s shoulder pain during his wife’s medical appointment is not persuasive. Response at 9-11. 4 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 5 of 9 The initial post-vaccination medical records not mentioning shoulder pain are not compelling: the first was an audiology evaluation, which was focused on complaints and findings not at all involving the shoulder. The second was a “refill reminder” for a medication relating to an unrelated medical condition, which appears to have been automatically generated and does not include clear means for Petitioner to report a new complaint. Petitioner maintains that he initially hoped that the pain would resolve on its own. The 72-day delay in seeking treatment supports that Petitioner’s shoulder pain was less severe, but it does not defeat a favorable onset determination. Once he presented for treatment, he reported a consistent history (e.g., “ongoing after flu shot”; “sudden, started with flu shot,” “s/p [status post] flu shot”) which is reasonably understood to fit within the Table timeframe, with no indication of an alternative onset or alternative causes. Respondent’s second and final entitlement objection is that Petitioner’s pain was not limited to his vaccinated left shoulder. Response at 11; see also 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(c)(10)(iii) (providing that in a Table SIRVA, “pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered”). Rather, Petitioner reported pain in the opposing right shoulder. Response at 11. But the cited medical records may be in error or a misinterpretation by Respondent. For instance, the notation “right now” did not necessarily mean the right shoulder, but rather, a current complaint. Petitioner also recalled that his pain at times radiated from the left shoulder, down through his left arm and hand. Response at 11. And as I have previously observed, such complaints do not defeat an otherwise-meritorious SIRVA claim – especially where there is ample and preponderant evidence that pain was primarily in the vaccinated shoulder. Otherwise, the record contains sufficient evidence showing Petitioner has satisfied the other QAI criteria. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i) and (iv). A thorough review of the record in this case does not reveal either a prior or current condition, and no other condition or abnormality which would explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Thus, and as I stated during the expedited hearing, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have been preponderantly established. C. Other Requirements for Entitlement Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, he need not prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, he must satisfy the other requirements of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of his injury, and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D). Respondent 5 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 6 of 9 does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall record contains preponderant evidence which fulfills these additional requirements. III. Compensation to be Awarded A. Pain and Suffering Under the Vaccine Act, the petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 1996). Compensation shall include “[f]or actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with my predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.7 Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress 7 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims, were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master. 6 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 7 of 9 contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims). Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by a decision of the Court of Federal Claims several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013). Graves instead emphasized the importance of assessing pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence specific to the injured individual, prior pain and suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this approach, the statutory cap merely cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain and suffering awards. I have periodically provided (in other published decisions) statistical data on pain and suffering for SIRVA claims resolved in SPU. See, e.g., McKenna v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0030V, 2023 WL 5045121, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 7, 2023). As noted in McKenna, as of July 1, 2023, in 173 SPU SIRVA cases that required reasoned damages determinations, compensation for past pain and suffering ranged from $40,000.00 to $215,000.00. Id. at *3. Cases with higher pain and suffering awards involved prompt medical attention; high subjective pain ratings; moderate to severe limitations in range of motion; significant findings on MRI; surgery or significant conservative treatment; and evidence of permanent injury. Id. at *3. In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all times Petitioner was a competent adult, with no impairments that would impact his awareness of the injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. In determining appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, I have carefully reviewed and taken into account the complete record in this case, including, but not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records, signed declarations,8 filings, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents and at the expedited hearing held on September 30, 2022. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non- SPU SIRVA cases, and relied upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, my determination is ultimately based upon the specific circumstances of this case. 8 Rather than affidavits, the statements provided by Petitioner are declarations signed under penalty of perjury as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. 7 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 8 of 9 Pursuant to my oral ruling on July 14, 2023 (which is fully adopted herein), I find that $55,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s pain and suffering. When making this determination, I have considered relevant facts such as the mildness of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain and limited ROM – as corroborated by his initial delay in seeking treatment; lack of prescription pain medication; and low pain ratings – at times reaching 0/10 at rest. I recognize that he did develop adhesive capsulitis – but that was improved with one steroid injection five months post-vaccination. His condition improved further, to the point that Petitioner had “met all goals” by his discharge from physical therapy (“PT”), after just 9 sessions total, 10.5 months post-vaccination. Petitioner confirmed in a letter to his primary care provider that his shoulder had “finally recovered” 11.5 months post-vaccination. It was reasonable to receive some additional massage therapy (which treatment for his shoulder had been endorsed by the physical therapist) ending 13 months post-vaccination, but his condition resolved by that point. Petitioner seeks $65,000.00 for his actual pain and suffering. In reaction, Respondent proffers $42,500.00, which would situate this case among the lowest awards resolved by reasoned opinion in the Program. Response at 19-20. But via his proffer, Respondent concedes that Petitioner should receive more than his first cited case, Ramos.9 The second case Respondent references, Mejias, involved an even longer delay in seeking treatment, zero PT sessions, and refusal of a cortisone injection.10 Petitioner’s cited cases are instructive. Brief at 39-40. Based on the similarities to cases like Welch11 and Roth,12 I will award $55,000.00 for Mr. Miller’s actual pain and suffering. B. Actual Unreimbursable Expenses Compensation shall also include “actual unreimbursable expenses” which: “(i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the petitioner seeks compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury, and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation, developmental evaluation, 9 Ramos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021) (awarding $40,000.00 for actual pain and suffering). 10 Mejias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1944V, 2021 WL 589622 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 10, 2021) ($45,000.00). 11 Welch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0660V, 2021 WL 4612654 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2021) ($55,000.00). 12 Roth v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. No. 19-0944V, 2021 WL 4469920 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2021) ($58,000.00 – to an individual who received no cortisone injections, but underwent a greater number of PT sessions, which recorded consistently severe pain). 8 Case 1:20-vv-01291-UNJ Document 51 Filed 09/26/23 Page 9 of 9 special education, vocational training and placement, case management services, counseling, emotional or behavioral therapy, residential and custodial care and service expenses, special equipment, related travel expenses, and facilities determined to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). Here, Respondent opposes $715.00 in massage therapy expenses. Response at 20. But there is sufficient documentation that Petitioner incurred the expenses, see Ex. 9. Petitioner explains that the massage therapy was focused on his shoulder. It is not apparent that a massage therapist would keep records of treatment, and Respondent has not explained why reimbursement of the expenses should turn on proof that the therapist was certified. The massage therapy is contemporaneously noted and endorsed by the physical therapist who was treating Petitioner’s shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 545 (“Massage has a lot of health benefits, and it certainly would not be harmful”). Finally, Respondent has agreed that Petitioner’s prior medical history was non-contributory – further supporting a conclusion that the massage therapy was intended to treat his shoulder. Accordingly, those expenses will be awarded. Conclusion For all the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the entire record, I find that Petitioner’s left shoulder injury meets the definition for a Table SIRVA. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Furthermore, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,944.24 (representing $55,000.00 for actual pain and suffering,13 plus $944.24 for actual unreimbursable expenses).14 This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.15 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 13 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96- 0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). 14 The parties stipulated to the expenses apart from those for massage therapy (awarded herein). Brief at 37; Response at 20. 15 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. 9 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01291-cl-extra-10735491 Date issued/filed: 2024-04-29 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268901 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1291V MATTHEW MILLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: March 29, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On September 30, 2020, Matthew Miller 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 after receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 10, 2018, he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petition at 1. On August 18, 2023, I issued a decision determining entitlement and awarding damages to Petitioner, following briefing by the parties and participation in a Motions Day argument. ECF No. 47. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $38,613.78 (representing $37,295.60 for fees and $1,318.18 for costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs filed Feb. 1, 2024, ECF No. 54. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 55 Respondent reacted to the motion on February 1, 2024, representing 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, 3 n.2, ECF No. 56. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set forth below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees 2 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. ATTORNEY FEES The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2023 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. Petitioner has also requested the same attorney hourly rate of $500 for work performed by Ronald Homer in 2024. ECF No. 54 at 17. Additionally, Petitioner requests an hourly rate of $185 for paralegal work. Id. I find these hourly rates to be reasonable. Regarding the time billed, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for the review of a status report prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 54 at 8, 11, 12, 16 (entries dated 9/29/20, 8/5/21, 9/7/21, 1/3/22, 8/21/23). I note that it is common practice for Conway, Homer, P.C. to have several attorneys assist over the course of a case. In some instances, such as when preparing substantive documents like the petition, briefs, and demands, it is reasonable to have another set of eyes review that document. See, e.g., ECF No. 54 at 11 (entries dated 9/7/21). However, it is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review routine filings, such as status reports and motions for enlargement of time, when those filings were prepared (and billed for) by another attorney. This is not the first time I or other special masters have noted this particular issue concerning Conway, Homer, P.C. billing practices. See, e.g., Manetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). To address this issue, I will reduce the amount of attorney’s fees by $263.00. Furthermore, I deem the total amount of time devoted to briefing entitlement and damages to be excessive. See Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement and Memorandum in Support of Damages, filed Sept. 6, 2022, ECF No. 39; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of Damages, filed Nov. 4, 2022, ECF No. 42; Hearing Minute entry dated July 17, 2023 (regarding proceedings on July 14, 2023). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 20.4 hours drafting the entitlement and damages brief and 14.1 3 hours drafting an initial reply brief, totaling 34.53 hours. ECF No. 54 at 14-15. My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand which would have informed this later work – 2.2 hours – and I am therefore awarding fees associated with that task in full.4 Nor am I counting time spent communicating with Petitioner and preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or signed declarations, which is also being awarded in full. See, e.g., ECF No. 54 at 14 (entry dated 9/2/22)). It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing, even the issue of both entitlement and damages in this case, where the issues presented are not complex. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter),5 in which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.6 See, e.g., Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1543V (Aug. 17, 2023) (17.8 and 9.7 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Piccolotti v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 0135V (June 8, 2023) (11.6 and 3.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Merson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0589V (May 18, 2023) (9.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief – although some time was doubtlessly saved by my March 9, 2020 factual ruling finding an appropriate pain onset); C.H. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0249V (May16, 2023) (12.9 and 6.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively). The circumstances of this case did not warrant devoting so much time to briefing. The primary areas of dispute involved the pain onset and symptom location7 and the appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering. See Miller 3 This total is calculated as follows: 1.4 hours billed on 9/2/22 by Joseph Pepper at a rate of $415; 32.5 hours billed on: 8/29/22, 8/31/22, 9/1/22, 9/2/22, 9/6/22, 10/17/22, 10/20/22, 10/24/22, 10/26/22, and 10/27/22, by Nathaniel Enos at a rate of $280; and 0.6 hours billed on11/4/22 by Patrick Kelly at a rate of $250. 4 This time was billed by Nathaniel Enos at a rate of $280. See ECF No. 54 at 12. 5 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 6 These decisions can be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited Mar. 24, 2024). 7 42 C.F.R. C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) & (iii) (2017). 4 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1291V, 2023 WL 6290019 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 18, 2023). Regarding damages, the parties’ views differed by $22,500.00 - Petitioner sought $65,000.00, and Respondent countered with $42,500.00. Id. at *5. I awarded an amount at least $10,000.00 from either proposed amount. Id. Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate. ECF No. 44. But the Act permits only an award of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for damages briefing (a total of 34.5 hours, or $9,831.00) by twenty percent.8 Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)9 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant” in identifying with specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub-area of work performed on the case. This results in a reduction of $1,966.20.10 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $1,318.18 in overall costs. ECF No. 54 at 2, 17-18. Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but expenses of $12.50 for copying and $13.55 for postage. Id. at 17-33. I will nevertheless allow reimbursement of these unsubstantiated costs. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. Thus, I find the amount of costs sought to be reasonable. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $36,384.58 (representing $35,066.40 for fees and $1,318.18 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable 8Because the amount of excessive hours was not as egregious as in previous cases, I will reduce the hours billed by a lower amount than I otherwise would apply. See, e.g., Callejas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1767V, 2023 WL 9288086 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 24, 2023). 9 Special masters are permitted to employ percentage reductions to hours billed, provided the reduction is sufficiently explained. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107, 111 (2017); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 702-704 (2016); Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 214 (2009). 10 This amount is calculated as follows: (1.4 hrs. x $415 x .20) + (32.5 hrs. x $280 x .20) + (0.6 hrs. x $250 x .20) = $1,966.20. 5 to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ronald C. Homer. 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.11 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 11 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 6