VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01401 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01401 Petitioner: Wendy Riva Filed: 2020-10-15 Decided: 2023-06-09 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-01-28 Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 1147695 AI-assisted case summary: Wendy Riva filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) caused by the influenza vaccine she received on January 28, 2020. The respondent conceded that Ms. Riva is entitled to compensation, agreeing that her condition satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. A ruling on entitlement was issued on July 9, 2021, finding her eligible for compensation. Subsequently, on January 10, 2023, the parties filed a proffer on award of compensation. The court awarded Ms. Riva a total of $1,147,695.72. This amount includes $2,160.81 for first-year life care expenses, $951,605.00 for past and future lost wages, $145,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering, and $48,929.91 for past unreimbursable expenses. An additional amount was awarded to purchase an annuity for future life care expenses. The award was based on a joint proffer by both parties, indicating agreement on the compensation amounts. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01401-0 Date issued/filed: 2021-08-09 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/09/2021) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 26 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1401V UNPUBLISHED WENDY RIVA, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 9, 2021 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent. Jessica Ann Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, New York, NY, for petitioner. Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 15, 2020, Wendy Riva filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) caused by the influenza vaccine she received on January 28, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶ 37. Petitioner further alleges that she continues to suffer the residual effects of her GBS, more than six months after vaccination, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil case or received compensation for her GBS. Id. at ¶¶ 38-40. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 9, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 26 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2 Specifically, Respondent states “[i]t is [his] position that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”).” Id. at 4. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01401-2 Date issued/filed: 2023-06-09 Pages: 8 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/10/2023) regarding 47 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1401V UNPUBLISHED W.R., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 10, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer; HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain- Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent. Jessica Ann Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner. Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 15, 2020, W.R. filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) caused by the influenza vaccine she received on January 28, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶ 37. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 9, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her GBS. On January 10, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in the life care plan filed with the Proffer as Tab A – the first year of these expenses totaling $2,160.81 to be paid to Petitioner and an annuity contract as described in II.B. purchased to provide all other life care items; compensation in the amount of $951,605.00 for her past and future lost wages; compensation in the amount of $145,000.00 for her past and future pain and suffering; and compensation in the 1 When this unpublished Decision was originally filed, I advised my intent to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This Decision is being posted with Petitioner’s name redacted to reflect initials only. Except for that change and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This Decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 8 amount of $48,929.91 for her past unreimburseable expenses. Proffer at 2-4. All amounts awarded for future lost wages and pain and suffering have been reduced to net present value pursuant to Section 15(f)(4)(A). Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioners agree with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioners are entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award the following: A. A lump sum in the amount of $1,147,695.72, representing compensation in the amounts of $2,160.81 for the first-year life care expenses, $951,605.00 for actual and projected lost wages $145,000.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering, and $48,929.91 for actual unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; and B. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in Section II.B of the Proffer, representing compensation for additional life care expenses. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 3 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS , Petitioner, No. 20-1401V v. Chief Special Master Corcoran ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 15, 2020, (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered an injury pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, namely Guillain Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination that she received on January 28, 2020. Petition at 1. On July 9, 2021, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Rule 4(c) Report conceding that compensation under the Vaccine Act is appropriate in this case, and the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 22, ECF No. 24. I. Items of Compensation A. Life Care Items Respondent engaged a life care planner to provide an estimation of petitioner’s future vaccine injury-related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine injury” is as described in respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. All items of compensation identified in the life care plan are supported by the evidence, and are illustrated by the chart entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for attached hereto as Tab A. Respondent proffers that petitioner Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 4 of 8 should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in the life care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab A. Petitioner agrees. B. Lost Earnings The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, has suffered past loss of earnings and will suffer future loss of earnings as a result of her vaccine related injury. Therefore, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded lost earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for past and future lost earnings is $951,605.00. Petitioner agrees. C. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $145,000.00 in actual and projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any award for projected pain and suffering has been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents her expenditure of past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $48,929.91. Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a combination of lump sum payments and future annuity payments as described below, and request that the Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:1 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 5 of 8 Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 6 of 8 describe only the total yearly sum to be paid to petitioner and do not require that the payment be made in one annual installment. 1. Growth Rate Respondent proffers that a four percent (4%) growth rate should be applied to all non- medical life care items, and a five percent (5%) growth rate should be applied to all medical life care items. Thus, the benefits illustrated in the chart at Tab A that are to be paid through annuity payments should grow as follows: four percent (4%) compounded annually from the date of judgment for non-medical items, and five percent (5%) compounded annually from the date of judgment for medical items. Petitioner agrees. 2. Life-contingent annuity Petitioner will continue to receive the annuity payments from the Life Insurance Company only so long as she, is alive at the time that a particular payment is due. Written notice shall be provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Life Insurance Company within twenty (20) days of death. 3. Guardianship Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment A. Lump Sum paid to petitioner, $1,147,695.72 B. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described above in section II.B. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 4 Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 7 of 8 HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division DARRYL R. WISHARD Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/Alexa Roggenkamp ALEXA ROGGENKAMP Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 (202) 616-4179 alexa.roggenkamp@usdoj.gov Dated: January 9, 2023 5 Case 1:20-vv-01401-UNJ Document 56 Filed 06/09/23 Page 8 of 8 Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Page 1 of 1 Lump Sum Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation ITEMS OF COMPENSATION G.R. * M Year 1 Year 2 Years 3-5 Years 6-13 Years 14-Life 2023 2024 2025-2027 2028-2035 2036-Life Insurance MOP 5% 1 ,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Medicare Part B Deductible 5% 226.00 226.00 Medigap 5% M 1,770.24 1,770.24 Medicare Part D 5% M 519.48 519.48 Primary Care Physician 5% * Neurologist 5% * Physiatry 5% * Pain Mngt 5% * EMG 5% * MRI 5% * Lab Testing 5% * Gym Membership 4% * 4 19.88 419.88 419.88 Physical Therapy Evaluation 4% * Physical Therapy 4% * Counseling 4% * Tablet 4% 4 49.00 89.80 89.80 89.80 89.80 ADLs 4% 1 50.00 75.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Handheld Shower 4% 4 2.43 8.49 8.49 8.49 8.49 Shower Chair 4% 3 8.39 7.68 7.68 7.68 7.68 Advil 4% 6 1.11 61.11 61.11 61.11 61.11 Gabapentin 4% * Trazedone 4% * Home Health Care 4% M 5,824.00 8,736.00 Lost Earnings 9 51,605.00 Pain and Suffering 1 45,000.00 Past Unreimbursable Expenses 4 8,929.91 Annual Totals 1 ,147,695.72 1,661.96 1,601.96 8,521.80 11,433.80 Note: Compensation Year 1 consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment. Compensation Year 2 consists of the 12 month period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of judgment. As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioner for Yr 1 life care expenses ($2,160.81), lost earnings ($951,605.00), pain and suffering ($145,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($48,929.91): $1,147,695.72. Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment. Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated above in column G.R., compounded annually from the date of judgment. Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare. Items denoted with an "M" payable in twelve monthly installments totaling the annual amount indicated. ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01401-cl-extra-10736907 Date issued/filed: 2023-11-27 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270317 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1401V W.R., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: October 23, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jessica Ann Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner. Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 15, 2020, W.R. filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome caused by an influenza vaccine she received on January 28, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On January 10, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. 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 inf ormation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If , upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material f rom public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $92,501.16 (representing $90,647.00 in fees, and $1,854.16 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”), filed June 16, 2023, ECF No. 57. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 54. Respondent reacted to the motion on July 14, 2023, noting that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 58. On July 18, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply reiterating her fees request. ECF No. 59. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reason stated 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 & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours 2 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 A. Attorney Hourly Rates Petitioner requests hourly rates for attorneys performing work in this matter as follows: 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jessica A. Wallace, Esq. $231 $241 $275 $285 Debra Gambella, Esq. X $380 $394 $409 Daisy Mazoff, Esq. X X $375 $389 Wendy Cox, Esq. X X X $475 The hourly rates requested for Ms. Wallace are reasonable and consistent with prior determinations, and will therefore be awarded herein. The rates requested for the other three attorneys, however, require adjustment. Ms. Gambella has been a licensed attorney since 2009 (ECF No. 57 at 10), and Ms. Mazoff has been a licensed attorney since 2011 (Id. at 11), placing them both in the rage of attorneys with 11-19 years’ experience based on the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules. 3 Although the requested rates are within the appropriate experience ranges, Ms. Gambella and Ms. Mazoff do not have significant demonstrated Vaccine Act experience. See Humphries v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-288V, 2021 WL 5444097, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 26, 2021) (establishing Ms. Gambella’s first hourly rate in the Vaccine Program in 2021); and Carroll v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1125V, Slip Op. 103 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 10, 2023) (establishing Ms. Mazoff’s first hourly rate in the Vaccine Program in 2022). It is therefore improper for Ms. Gambella and Ms. Mazoff to receive rates established for comparably-experienced counsel who also have lengthy experience in the Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Services, No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) (stating the following factors are paramount in deciding a reasonable forum hourly rate: experience in the Vaccine Program, overall legal experience, the quality of work performed, and the reputation in 3 The Attorneys’ Fee Schedule are available at http://www.cof c.uscourts.gov/node/2914. 3 the legal community and community at large). Rather, I find it reasonable to compensate Ms. Gambella at the lesser rate of $380 per hour, and Ms. Mazoff at the lesser rate of $375 per hour for their time billed in the 2022-23 timeframe. This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded herein by $341.70. 4 Ms. Cox similarly does not have demonstrated vaccine act experience, with this matter being her first Program case. See ECF No. 57 at 13. Ms. Cox has been a licensed attorney since 2005 (Id. at 12), placing her in the range of attorneys with 11-19 years’ experience based on the OSM Attorneys’ Fee Schedules. Her requested rate of $475 is therefore excessive, since rates on the higher end of the experience ranges are usually awarded only to those attorneys with significant experience in the Vaccine Program. See McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323 at *17. Accordingly, I find it reasonable to compensate Ms. Cox at the lesser rate of $390 for all time billed in the 2022-23 timeframe. This further reduces the amount of fees to be awarded herein by $892.50. 5 Petitioner’s attorneys’ are, however, entitled to rate increases in the future (for coming years), as they demonstrate more experience in the Vaccine Program. B. Paralegal Tasks Billed at Attorney Rates In addition to the aforementioned hourly rate reductions, there are several instances in which tasks that are considered paralegal in nature were billed at attorney hourly rates in this matter. Attorneys may be compensated for paralegal-level work, but only at a rate that is comparable to that of a paralegal. See, e.g. Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. XX-XXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010) (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989)); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016); Riggins. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *20-21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009); Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99- 535, 2008 WL 5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008). Upon review of the billing records, approximately 44.20 hours were billed on tasks considered paralegal in nature. 6 Counsel is admonished that “[t]asks that can be 4 This amount consists of: ($389 - $375 = $14 x 0.30 = $4.20) + ($394 - $380 = $14 x 6.50 = $91.00) + ($409 - $380 = $29 x 8.50 = $246.50). 5 This amount consists of : ($475 - $390 = $85 x 10.50 = $892.50). 6 Examples of such billing entries are as f ollows: 11/5/20: “Draft cover letter for records request…” 11/13/20: “Email and phone call to Cedar’s Sinai to follow-up on request for medical records…” 11/25/20 (two entries): “Prepare cover letter; f ax to Dr. Ellis…” 6/9/21: “Compare expense spreadsheet provided by client with 4 completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries are reimbursable, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Accordingly, I reduce the hourly rates for Attorneys Wallace, Gambella, and Mazoff for all tasks considered paralegal in nature to a rate of $162 per hour, respectively. This further reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $7,461.20. 7 C. Excessive or Redundant Billing Besides the above, the fees award must also be reduced for excessive billing related to inter-office communications and redundant billing entries where multiple attorneys and paralegals performed work on the same tasks. For example, Attorneys Wallace, Gambella, Mazoff, Cox, and paralegals billed over 27.90 hours 8 for internally discussing case matters; performing work on the same actual invoices,” 6/10/21 (two entries): “Compare expense spreadsheet provided by W. Riva…” 6/11/21; 7/7/21; 7/8/21 (six entries); 7/9/21: “Prepare and review exhibits…” 12/22/21: “Organize the documentation to be submitted,” 12/23/21: “Continue to organize the supporting documentation to be provided to HHS,” 12/30/21: Review all additional docs to be sent to opposing counsel…” 3/1/22 (two entries): “Redact client inf ormation; Create spreadsheet to detail date of invoice…” 5/18/22: “Prepare a list of the numbered items…” 5/27/22; 5/28/22; 5/31/22 (three entries); 8/24/22; 8/26/22: “Review and outline new records received f rom Dr. Gindi…” 8/26/22: “Compile packet of medical records…” 8/31/22 (three entries); 9/2/22 (seven entries). See ECF No. 57-1 at 9-38. 7 This amount is calculated as follows: 17.40 hours billed by Attorney Wallace: ($231 - $162 = $69 x 1.00 hrs = $69) + ($241 - $162 = $79 x 9.90 hrs = $782.10) + ($275 - $162 = $113 x 6.50 hrs = $734.50); and 22.80 hours billed by Attorney Gambella: ($380 - $162 = $218 x 19.00 hrs = $4,142.00) + ($394 - $162 = $232 x 3.80 hrs = $881.60); and 4.00 hours billed by Attorney Mazof f : ($375 - $162 = $213 x 4.00 = $852.00) f or an overall total of : $7,461.20 8 Examples of such billing entries include: 10/6/20: “Phone call with J. Wallace regarding petition, affidavit, and exhibits,” 10/20/20: “Phone call with J. Wallace regarding new medical providers and HIPPAA Authorizations,” 10/22/20 (two entries): “Email exchanges with J. Wallace,” 10/27/20; 10/28/20 (two entries); 10/29/20; 3/16/21 (two entries): “Receipt of and response to J. Wallace email regarding notice of f iling and exhibit 19,” 3/19/21 (two entries); 6/14/21; 6/29/21: “Phone call with D. Gambella about out of pocket expenses,” 7/6/21; 7/7/21 (two entries); 7/8/21; 8/17/21; 9/3/21; 9/22/21 (two entries); 9/30/21 (two entries); 5/27/22 (two entries); 7/27/22: “Phone call with D. Mazoff…” 7/28/22 (six entries); 8/3/22 (three entries); 8/4/22; 8/12/22; 8/25/22; 8/26/22: “Draft email to J. Wallace,” 8/31/22: “draft email to J. Wallace…” 9/2/22; 9/6/22 (six entries); 1/5/23; 1/17/23; 1/18/23; 1/20/23: “Draft motion for redaction…” 1/24/23: “review and revise motion for redaction…” 1/24/23: “review corrections on motion to redact,” 1/24/23: “Email with counsel concerning motion to redact,” 1/25/23: “revise, f inalize and complete motion to redact,” 2/14/23; 5 tasks; and multiple attorneys participating in conferences and meetings with Petitioner, resulting in over $10,000.00 in requested fees. Special Masters have previously reduced attorney fees awarded due to excessive and duplicative billing. See Ericzon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-654V, 2016 WL 7212323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 2, 2016) (reduced overall fee award by 20 percent), mot. for rev. denied, 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (2016). Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte, without providing petitioners notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The quantity of internal emails and double tasks billed in this matter is deemed excessive and reflects counsel’s inexperience in the Vaccine Program. Accordingly, I hereby reduce the request for reimbursement of such excessive billing entries (a total of 27.90 hours, or $10,414.70) 9 by thirty percent. This results in an additional reduction in attorneys’ fees to be awarded of $3,124.41. 10 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $1,854.16 in overall costs. ECF No. 57-1 at 48. Such costs are associated with obtaining medical records, postage fees and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of them to be reasonable, with the exception of $335.10 in requested costs that have not been substantiated by any supporting documentation, such as an invoice or proof of payment. 11 Id. at 48. When Petitioners fail to provide appropriate documentation to substantiate a requested cost, special masters have refrained from awarding the relevant sum. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook 3/15/23 “Email to W. Cox with relevant documents from case…” 3/15-3/16/23: “Draft final f ee motion,” 3/17/23: “Draf t final fee motion,” 3/20/23: “Email to J. Wallace with the motion for f inal fees,” 3/27/23: “review and revise motion f or final fees,” 3/29/23: “finalize f inal motion for attorney fees,” 6/15/23: “review and revise attorney f ee motion,” 3/29/23: “email to J. Wallace,” 3/31/23; 6/9/23 (f our entries); 6/13/23; 6/15/23 (two entries); 6/16/23 (three entries). See ECF No. 57-1 at 6-47. 9 This amount consists of: 9.90 hours billed by Attorney Wallace: ($241 x 1.90 hrs = $457.90) + ($275 x 1.20 hrs = $330.00) + ($285 x 6.80 hrs = $1,938.00); and 6.90 hours billed by Attorney Gambella: ($380 x 2.40 hrs = $912.00) + ($394 x 0.60 hrs = $236.40) + ($409 x 3.90 hrs = $1,595.10); and 3.30 hours billed by Attorney Mazoff: ($375 x 3.10 hrs = $1,162.50) + ($389 x 0.20 hrs = $77.80); and 7.80 hours billed by Attorney Cox: ($475 x 7.80 hrs = $3,705.00) f or an overall total of $10,414.70. 10 This amount is calculated as: ($10,414.70 x .30 = $3,124.41). Examples of the unsubstantiated costs include: 7/1/20; 7/6/20; 9/22/20; 11/6/20; 12/3/20; 2/1/21. See 11 ECF No. 57-1 at 48-84. 6 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005). Thus, I disallow such costs reducing the total amount of litigation costs to be awarded by $335.10. 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 $80,346.25 (representing $78,827.19 in attorney’s fees and $1,519.06 in attorney’s costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Jessica A. Wallace. 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. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 12 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 7