VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01313 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01313 Petitioner: Charles J. Keyser Filed: 2020-10-02 Decided: 2025-03-13 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-10-09 Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 33000 AI-assisted case summary: On October 2, 2020, Charles J. Keyser filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 9, 2017 caused Guillain-Barre syndrome. The case first produced a contested Table ruling. Early records described lower back and leg symptoms, altered walking, knee issues, lumbar spondylosis or degenerative disc disease, paresthesias, reduced reflexes, and later progressive bilateral lower-extremity weakness. At a November 2017 emergency visit, Mr. Keyser described symptoms beginning two days after the flu shot, and lumbar puncture findings supported a GBS diagnosis. He improved with IVIG. The Special Master initially rejected Table entitlement because lumbar spine disease and overlapping symptoms complicated onset and alternative-cause analysis, while leaving room for an off-Table causation case. The parties later resolved compensation by stipulation. Respondent continued to deny that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Keyser's GBS or any other condition. On March 13, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation and awarded Mr. Keyser a lump sum of $33,000.00. A later attorney-fee award was separate from injury compensation. Mr. Keyser was represented by Nancy R. Meyers. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine on October 9, 2017 allegedly causing GBS; adult self-filed petitioner, exact age not stated. COMPENSATED by stipulation after contested Table ruling. Key evidence: early lower back/leg symptoms and lumbar spondylosis/DDD alternative issue; later progressive bilateral leg weakness, LP consistent with GBS, improvement with IVIG; Table claim rejected but off-Table case later settled. Award $33,000 lump sum; later fee award separate. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition October 2, 2020; compensation decision March 13, 2025. Attorney Nancy R. Meyers. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01313-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-05-31 Pages: 3 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/26/2023) regarding 25 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (rig) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 26 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 3 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: April 26, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CHARLES J. KEYSER, * No. 20-1313V * Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S TABLE CLAIM1 On October 2, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition alleging that he suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 9, 2017. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. This case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). ECF No. 8. On May 11, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report. Resp’t’s Report, ECF No. 14. Respondent argued that Petitioner’s symptoms began two days post vaccination and therefore did not begin in the timeframe specified by the Vaccine Injury Table as required for a presumption of vaccine causation. Id. at 10 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(III)(B)). Respondent also argued that Petitioner had not presented preponderant evidence pursuant to Althen that his injury was caused-in-fact by his vaccination. Id. at 10–11. On August 14, 2021, the chief special master issued an order to show cause as to why Petitioner’s claim should not be dismissed. Show Cause Order, ECF No. 17. The chief special master noted some details from Petitioner’s medical records. Id. at 2. Petitioner reported two weeks of lower back pain extending down the back and front of his legs to his primary care physician (“PCP”) on October 24, 2017, which places the onset of symptoms on approximately October 10, 2017. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 110, ECF No. 1-5). Petitioner’s PCP assessed him with degenerative disc disease with suspected mild nerve impingement. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 113). 1 Because this Order 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 Order 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. Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 26 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 3 Two weeks later, on November 7, 2017, a physiatrist attributed Petitioner’s symptoms to lumbar spondylosis and degenerative disc disease. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 17, ECF No. 1-6). On November 28, 2017, Petitioner went to the emergency room (“ER”) complaining of progressive bilateral lower extremity weakness that began two days after his flu vaccination. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 22, ECF No. 1-7). Petitioner had a lumbar puncture consistent with GBS, and he experienced improvement after receiving treatment with IVIG. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 47, 50, 57). The chief special master also noted that he “recently dismissed a claim where onset of GBS symptoms was too close in time to vaccination to be medically acceptable.” Id. He continued, “other previous flu-GBS non-Table claims adjudicated in the Program have mostly not succeeded where onset occurred earlier than three days after vaccination.” Id. at 2–3. The chief special master explained that these previous “determinations do not control the outcome in this case, [but] they demonstrate that what is known medically/scientifically about the pathogenesis of GBS weighs against findings of flu vaccine causality when onset is too close temporally to the vaccination event.” Id. at 3. In response, Petitioner asserted that he suffered from unrelated back pain before the onset of his GBS and that “[t]he two-day onset period referenced in the medical records relates to the onset of [his] back pain . . . and not the onset of his GBS.” Pet’r’s Resp. at 1, ECF No. 20 (emphasis in original). Petitioner contended that his GBS symptoms began in early to-mid November 2017, specifically sometime after November 7, 2017, and before November 28, 2017. Id. at 7, 9. He noted that “there was no notation of absent reflexes characteristic of GBS” and no balance of coordination issues on November 7, 2017, but Petitioner had absent reflexes on November 28, 2017. Id. at 8. He stated that he was hospitalized at the nadir of his symptoms, on November 28, 2017. Id. He argued that, based on the typical trajectory of GBS, his nadir of weakness would have occurred before that date if the onset of his GBS was two days post vaccination. Id. (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(i)). He differentiated his initial back pain from his GBS symptoms and argued that his initial back pain was “entirely consistent with lower back pain caused by his left L2-3 disk herniation causing cord compression.” Id. Petitioner also argued that his contention that his back pain and GBS occurred concurrently is supported by his improvement of GBS symptoms and continuing treatment for back pain. Id. at 10. Petitioner asserted that “his GBS symptoms began within the 3–42 day Table period entitling him to a presumption that his GBS was caused by his flu vaccination.” Id. at 1. He requested that his claim be analyzed as a causation-in-fact claim and that he be given the opportunity to file an expert report if the special master finds “that Petitioner’s back pain was the genesis of his GBS[.]” Id. Respondent argued that Petitioner’s claim should be dismissed because “if [his] GBS symptoms began two days after vaccination, as reflected in the records, then onset occurred too close in time to vaccination to be medically acceptable.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 10, ECF No. 21. He argued that “[a]lternatively, if the Court finds that [P]etitioner’s GBS symptoms began in ‘early to mid-November 2017,’ . . . then [P]etitioner has not met the Vaccine Act’s sixth [sic] month severity requirement.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i)). Respondent contended that “[P]etitioner’s GBS resolved prior to May 1, 2018, when he was discharged from physical therapy [ ] after meeting all of his goals and ambulating without assistance.” Id. at 11 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 7 at 84–86, ECF No. 1-9). Respondent contended that “[t]he record evidence is clear that [P]etitioner’s episode of GBS resolved quickly.” Id. at 12. Respondent asserted that “[P]etitioner 2 Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 26 Filed 05/31/23 Page 3 of 3 himself attributes [his back and leg pain occurring after May 1, 2018] to his radiculopathy[]” rather than GBS. Id. Although Petitioner did not assert a Table claim in his petition, he argued in his response that he is entitled to the Table’s presumption of causation because the onset of his GBS occurred within the 3–42-day timeframe specified in the Table. However, without addressing the onset of Petitioner’s GBS, the Table’s qualifications and aids to interpretation (“QAI”) specify that “[t]o qualify as any subtype of GBS [under the Table], there must not be a more likely alternative diagnosis for the weakness.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(v). In this case, Petitioner had diagnoses of lumbar spondylosis and degenerative disc disease, and the medical records show overlap between his symptoms attributed to those conditions and his symptoms related to GBS. While Petitioner has alleged that his GBS symptoms began after November 7, 2017, he reported symptoms consistent with GBS including “walking differently[]” and having “sat down on his right knee and [having] extreme difficulty getting back up[]” to his PCP on October 24, 2017. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 109–10. On November 7, 2017, Petitioner presented to a physiatrist, who found on exam that Petitioner had painful motion and decreased range of motion in his lumbar spine, antalgic gait, and decreased reflexes in the right patellar joint. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 12, 15–16. The assessment included paresthesia of the skin, numbness and tingling, left leg pain, and bilateral lower extremity pain as well as lumbar degenerative disc disease and lumbar spondylosis. Id. at 17. When Petitioner presented to the ER on November 28, 2017, he reported that “over the past week [he] had progressive bilateral lower extremity weakness. He state[d] this started [two] days after he got a flu shot[. He had] paresthesias [and] had back pain, and then he started having the weakness.” Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 22. Due to the overlap between the GBS symptoms and lumbar symptoms, and the fact that they manifested during the same time period, I find by a preponderant standard that Petitioner’s unrelated lumbar conditions constitute more likely alternative causes for Petitioner’s weakness. In light of this disqualifying factor, I hereby DISMISS Petitioner’s Table claim. Respondent has argued that, if Petitioner’s asserted onset date is correct, his causation-in- fact claim should be dismissed due to his inability to satisfy the six-month severity requirement. However, despite Petitioner’s contention of when his GBS symptoms began, the onset date remains unclear. Furthermore, there is some suggestion in the medical record that Petitioner may have experienced sequela of GBS after May 1, 2018. For instance, following an initial physical therapy evaluation on February 7, 2019, the evaluating physical therapist wrote that Petitioner’s “symptoms are likely a hold over from his bout of GBS last year.” Pet’r’s Ex. 7 at 89–90. I will allow Petitioner the opportunity to submit an expert report addressing the onset and duration of his GBS symptoms, as well as the Althen prongs. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01313-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-25 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/13/2025) regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (krt) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 13, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CHARLES J. KEYSER, * No. 20-1313V * Petitioner, * Special Master Young v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner. Benjamin Patrick Warder, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On October 2, 2020, Charles J. Keyser (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012); Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 9, 2017, caused him to suffer Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Pet. at 1. On March 11, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7, ECF No. 49. Respondent “denies that the flu vaccine caused [P]etitioner to suffer from GBS or any other condition.” Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation. See id. at ¶ 7. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. 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. Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 2 of 7 The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation: (a) A lump sum payment of $33,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Id. ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D.S. Young Herbrina D.S. Young Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01313-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/25/25 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01313-cl-extra-11271029 Date issued/filed: 2026-03-04 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10804299 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: November 24, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CHARLES J. KEYSER, * No. 20-1313 * Petitioner, * Special Master Young * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner; Benjamin Patrick Warder, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On October 2, 2020, Charles J. Keyser (“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 administered on October 9, 2017, caused him to suffer Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On March 11, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on March 13, 2025. ECF No. 50. On March 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (“Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”) (ECF No. 54). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of 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. $70,680.37, representing $62,466.00 in attorneys’ fees and $6,059.47 in attorneys’ costs associated with representation at Turning Point Litigation, as well as $2,050.00 in attorneys’ fees and $104.90 in costs associated with representation at Ward Black Law. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC at 1; Ex. 2 at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that he has not personally any costs related to the prosecution of his petition. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC Ex. 4 at 2. Respondent responded to the motion on April 2, 2025, stating that Respondent “is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and asking the Court to “exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, 4. (ECF No. 55). Petitioner filed a reply on the same day. (ECF No. 56). 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 her 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 stipulation, he 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. Reasonable Hourly Rates 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 hourly rates for the work of his counsel: for Attorney Nancy Routh Meyers, $390 per hour for work completed in 2019, $400 per hour for work performed in 2020, $430 per hour for work performed in 2021, $460 per hour for work performed in 2022, $490 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $530 per hour for work performed in 2024 and 2025; for Attorney L. Cooper Harrell, $430.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $460.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $490.00 per hour for work performed in 2024 and 2025; for Attorney Hillary Kies, $370.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $390.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $410.00 per hour for work performed in 2024 and 2025; and, for Attorney Tyler Nullmeyer, $275.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $290.00 per hour for work performed in 2023 and 2024, and $350.00 per hour for work performed in 2025. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. 1 at 1. Petitioner also requests between $145.00-$180.00 per hour for paralegal work performed from 2017-2025. Id. The rates requested are consistent with what counsel and paralegals have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and I find them to be reasonable 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 $64,516.00, representing an award of $62,466.00 in attorneys’ fees to Turning Point Litigation and an award of $2,050.00 in attorneys’ fees to Ward Black Law. 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 $6,164.37 in attorneys’ costs comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, the 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. 3 Court’s filing fee, legal research, expert finding services provided by Elite Medical Experts ($1,750.00) and expert services provided by William Meador, MD ($3,775.00). Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. 2. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting these costs, and is therefore awarded the full amount sought. These costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation of all these expenses, and they appear reasonable in my experience.4 Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the full amount of costs sought. 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 find 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: Turning Point Litigation Attorneys’ Fees Requested $62,466.00 (Reduction of Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $62,466.00 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $6,059.47 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $6,059.47 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Turning Point Litigation) $68,525.47 Ward Black Law Attorneys’ Fees Requested $2,050.00 (Reduction of Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $2,050.00 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $104.90 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $104.90 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Ward Black Law) $2,154.90 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $70,680.37 4 In awarding the full amount of costs sought, I am not specifically endorsing any particular hourly rate for Dr. Meador’s work. Rather, in light of his work product submitted into the record, I find that the total amount for Dr. Meador’s work is reasonable. 4 Accordingly, a lump sum in the amount of $70,680.37, 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. 5