VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01560 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01560 Petitioner: Virginia Lamine Filed: 2020-11-10 Decided: 2023-08-11 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-10-14 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 42500 AI-assisted case summary: On November 10, 2020, Virginia Lamine filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 14, 2018. Ms. Lamine, a 41-year-old dental hygienist, reported immediate soreness after the injection, which progressed to significant pain and limited range of motion within days. She sought medical attention over two months later, on December 28, 2018, reporting persistent left shoulder pain since the vaccination. Her initial treatment included physical therapy, which provided some improvement, but she continued to experience pain and discomfort. Ms. Lamine attributed her delayed return to formal treatment to financial constraints as a single mother. Medical records documented ongoing shoulder pain and tenderness, consistent with impingement syndrome and rotator cuff tendonitis. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that the medical records did not establish the onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination and that the injury did not last for more than six months. Ms. Lamine filed a motion for a ruling on the record, contending she met the criteria for a Table SIRVA claim. The Chief Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, issued a Ruling on Entitlement on June 30, 2023, finding that Ms. Lamine met the criteria for a Table SIRVA claim, including the onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination and residual effects lasting more than six months. The decision noted that the injury was mild and that any damages award would reflect this. Subsequently, on August 11, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision awarding Ms. Lamine $42,500.00 for pain and suffering, based on a stipulation between the parties. The award was a lump sum payment made via check to Ms. Lamine. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer of Conway, Homer, P.C., and Respondent was represented by Amanda Pasciuto of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Virginia Lamine, age 41, received an influenza vaccine on October 14, 2018. She filed a petition alleging a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), which is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The petitioner alleged onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination and that the injury's residual effects lasted more than six months. The respondent contested entitlement, arguing the medical records did not support the 48-hour onset or the six-month duration. The Chief Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, found that the totality of the record, including petitioner's affidavit and medical records from December 28, 2018, and January 11, 2019, supported an onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination. The Special Master also found that despite a gap in treatment due to financial reasons, the petitioner's symptoms persisted beyond six months, citing her continued home exercises and reports of ongoing pain in fall 2019. The Special Master determined that Ms. Lamine met all criteria for a Table SIRVA and was entitled to compensation. A subsequent decision on August 11, 2023, awarded Ms. Lamine $42,500.00 for pain and suffering via a lump sum payment, based on a stipulation between petitioner (represented by Ronald Craig Homer) and respondent (represented by Amanda Pasciuto). Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01560-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-31 Pages: 14 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/30/2023) regarding 28 Ruling on Entitlement: Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 1 of 14 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1560V VIRGINIA LAMINE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 30, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On November 10, 2020, Virginia Lamine filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on October 14, 2018. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons discussed below, I find it more likely than not that Petitioner’s injury and its residual effects lasted for more than six months; that the onset of Petitioner’s 1 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. 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 (2012). Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 2 of 14 shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination; and that Petitioner is otherwise entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act. I. Relevant Procedural History After initiating her claim, Petitioner filed additional records, an affidavit, and a statement of completion on November 23, 2020. ECF Nos. 6–10. On October 25, 2021, Petitioner filed additional medical records. ECF No. 18. Approximately two months later, on December 27, 2021, Respondent filed a status report indicating this case was not appropriate for compensation and requesting to file a Rule 4(c) report. ECF No. 21. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report on February 24, 2022. ECF No. 22. Specifically, Respondent argued that Petitioner’s medical records do not show that the onset of her pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at 8–9. Respondent further argued that Petitioner failed to establish the statutory requirement that her injury lasted for more than six months and accordingly her case should be dismissed. Id. at 9 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i)). Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a ruling on the record (“Motion”) on May 24, 2022. ECF No. 23. Petitioner contends that she has met her burden of proof for a Table SIRVA claim based on the record.3 Id. at 32. Specifically, she argues that she can satisfy each of the criteria set forth in the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA claim. Id. at 14–24. She also argues that she can satisfy the six-month severity requirement because her medical records corroborate her ongoing shoulder pain during her approximate seven-month gap in treatment. Id. at 24–26. Respondent filed his response to Petitioner’s motion (“Response”) on July 15, 2022. ECF No. 24. He reiterated that Petitioner’s main support that her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination is her affidavit, not contemporaneous medical records and she therefore cannot meet her burden for a Table SIRVA. Id. at 11. He maintained that Petitioner also cannot satisfy the six-month severity requirement because at the time of her discharge from PT on February 22, 2019, her pain had improved. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 4 at 58–59, 302). However, Petitioner did not complain of and restart treatment for shoulder pain until September 16, 2019, approximately seven and a half months later, according to Respondent.4 Id. (citing Ex. 4 at 303–08). 3 Petitioner also argued that if her Table SIRVA claim is unsuccessful, she alternatively has satisfied her burden of proof for causation-in-fact and an off-Table SIRVA claim. Motion at 26–32. This Ruling will not address Petitioner’s off-Table SIRVA claim or any additional arguments regarding the same. 4 Respondent argues Petitioner had a seven-and-a-half-month gap in treatment. Resp. at 12. This appears to be incorrect, as Petitioner’s gap in treatment supported by medical records spanned from February 22, 2 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 3 of 14 On August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed her reply (“Reply”) and reiterated that she has met her burden for a Table SIRVA claim and has satisfied the six-month severity requirement. ECF No. 25. This matter is now ripe for consideration. II. Authority Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section 11(c)(1). A petitioner may prevail on his claim if he has “sustained, or endured the significant aggravation of any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Section 11(c)(1)(C)(i). 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). If a claimant establishes that he has suffered a “Table Injury,” causation is presumed. Section 11(c)(1) also contains requirements concerning the type of vaccination received and where it was administered, the duration or significance of the injury, and the lack of any other award or settlement. See Section 11(c)(1)(A), (B), (D), and (E). With regard to duration, a petitioner must establish that he suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine. Section 11(c)(1)(D). Effective for petitions filed beginning on March 21, 2017, SIRVA is an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. See Vaccine Injury Table: Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). The criteria are as follows: 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). 2019, to September 16, 2019, approximately six months and twenty-five days. I do not find Respondent’s miscalculation to be detrimental to his argument, however. 3 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 4 of 14 Id. III. Relevant Factual Evidence At the time of vaccination, Petitioner was forty-one years old and employed as a dental hygienist. Ex. 1 at 3, ECF No. 6. Her prior relevant medical history includes complaints of back and bilateral shoulder pain in November of 2015, for which she underwent a breast reduction surgery. Ex. 3 at 12, 71, ECF No. 6. On October 14, 2018, Petitioner received the subject flu vaccine in her left deltoid. Ex. 1 at 1–3. In her affidavit, signed on November 9, 2020, Petitioner noted that she recalled expressing concern regarding air bubbles in the syringe to the vaccine administrator prior to receiving the vaccination. Ex. 6 at 1, ECF No. 7. She also “remember[ed] feeling instantly sore after the vaccination.” Id. She continued that “[her] shoulder was very sore for several days immediately following the injection, more so than . . . with any other flu shot.” Id. at 2–3. Petitioner explained that “days turned into weeks without much relief[]” and she then realized “something more serious [was] going on . . . when range of motion [(“ROM”)] above [her] head caused sharp pain.” Id. at 2. Petitioner noted that “[t]his all happened around the holidays.” Id. She further noted having difficulties at work, as she could not use her left arm to hand instruments to the dentist like she usually did. Id. More than two months post vaccination, Petitioner presented to her primary care provider (“PCP”), Advanced Practice Nurse Prescriber (“NP”) Brooke Fowler, on December 28, 2018. Ex. 4 at 42–48, ECF No. 6. NP Fowler noted the chief complaint as “left shoulder pain since [O]ct[ober] 14th[, 2018].” Id. at 45. Petitioner reported “left shoulder pain following a flu shot . . . on [October 14, 2018].” Id. NP Fowler wrote that Petitioner “note[d] that her arm was very sore three days following the injections,” and “[f]ollowing that, she began to notice issues when she move[d] her elbow [] above her shoulder.” Id. She said this pain was “most noticeable with driving” and sleeping on her side. Id. Petitioner described her pain as “consistent in severity, 6/10[,]” sharp, but no pain at rest. Id. NP Fowler wrote that Petitioner “fe[lt] that the pain happen[ed] more frequently the longer she has waited” to seek treatment. Id. NP Fowler also noted that Petitioner’s shoulder pain had “been going on for the past two and half months” and that Petitioner did not “feel that this [wa]s getting better, [but rather wa]s becoming more persistent.” Id. at 48. A physical exam revealed normal ROM, sensation, and strength, with left shoulder pain and mild tenderness upon certain movements. Ex. 4 at 47. NP Fowler diagnosed Petitioner with chronic left shoulder pain and opined the etiology “may be [Petitioner’s] labrum or rotator cuff.” Id. at 48. Petitioner declined a course of anti-inflammatories but 4 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 5 of 14 was encouraged to attend physical therapy (“PT”), apply ice, avoid placing her purse on her left shoulder, and to return if her symptoms worsened. Id. at 49. Petitioner presented for an initial PT evaluation with Dr. Jessica Sigl on January 11, 2019. Ex. 4 at 292–96. Dr. Sigl wrote that Petitioner “had [a] flu vaccination on Oct[tober] 14[, 2018,] on [her] left arm. [She s]tate[d] that [her] shoulder was really sore after which is typical; however, after a week period she still noticed shoulder discomfort with putting on shirts.” Id. at 292. Petitioner continued, “[s]ince then” she has experienced limited ROM and has not used her left arm as much due to shoulder pain. Id. Petitioner reported her current pain at a 2/10, with her typical pain range of 2–8/10. Id. Dr. Sigl wrote that Petitioner “[d]id have one morning where the arm was numb when she was laying on that shoulder, but otherwise denie[d] radicular symptoms.” Id. Petitioner described the activities that exacerbated her pain, including driving, reaching, and sleeping on her side. Id. On exam, Petitioner exhibited mild limitation with active ROM, mild scapular and shoulder weakness, and left shoulder impingement. Id. at 293–95. Dr. Sigl assessed her with “signs and symptoms consistent with [left] shoulder impingement with rotator cuff tendonitis and possible labral pathology . . . after having [a] flu injection.” Id. at 295. Dr. Sigl further opined that Petitioner’s symptoms were consistent with an “injection [causing] location irritation [to the] surrounding tissues causing disuse and mild weakness.” Id. She recommended that Petitioner attend one PT session per week for eight weeks. Id. at 296. Petitioner attended four additional PT sessions on January 18, January 25, February 8, and February 22, 2019. Ex. 4 at 296–301. Throughout her PT treatment, Petitioner reported slight improvements of her shoulder pain. See, e.g., id. at 297–300 (notation from January 18, 2019, reporting her shoulder pain at a 2–3/10; notation from January 25, 2019, reporting her shoulder pain at a 1–2/10; notation from February 8, 2019, reporting her shoulder pain at a 1/10). On February 22, 2019, Petitioner attended her final PT session. Id. at 302. She reported that her “pain ha[d] improved since [her] initial session[,]” including with driving. Id. Petitioner described her pain as “good” and a 1/10. Id. at 302–03. She also noted she had “been trying to use [her] arm like normal and notices the pain more with taking her shirt off.” Id. at 302. Dr. Sigl suggested for the next session that Petitioner “[h]old [treatment] with [an] independent HEP [home exercise program] for [thirty] days.” Id. Dr. Sigl wrote that Petitioner had a good understanding of the HEP “and activity modifications to avoid aggravation of [her] symptoms.” Id. at 303. Dr. Sigl recommended Petitioner return “as needed if any [of her] symptoms progress.” Id. The same day, February 22, 2019, Petitioner returned to NP Fowler for her annual physical. Ex. 4 at 55. Of note, NP Fowler noted Petitioner had “[n]o health concerns” and that Petitioner “mention[ed] that her shoulder ha[d] improved with [her] recent regimen of 5 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 6 of 14 [PT].” Id. at 58. She reported exercising approximately two times per week using an elliptical and free weights at home. Id. at 59. Petitioner’s musculoskeletal exam was normal with no abnormalities. Id. at 62. Petitioner did not subsequently seek medical care generally,5 or for her left shoulder pain specifically, until September 2019, approximately seven months later. In her affidavit, however, Petitioner maintained that she was experiencing shoulder pain during this gap in treatment. Ex. 6 at 2. She attested that following her “discharge” from PT to a HEP, she “wanted to return to seek additional care, but it was cost-prohibitive.” Id. Petitioner indicated she supports herself and her two daughters on her dental hygienist salary. Id. She attested that she therefore “continued to do at-home exercises and used over-the-counter medication and ice packs.” Id. at 2–3. When she ultimately “did not experience any relief,” she presented to an orthopedic specialist in the fall of 2019. Id. at 3. On September 16, 2019, Petitioner called her PCP’s office to inquire about a referral to orthopedics. Ex. 4 at 81. Petitioner reported that she was “still having problems with her left shoulder” and that it “ha[d] been aching for a long time.” Id. She noted PT did not “really help that much” and she was experiencing pain when picking things up, including soup cans. Id. After receiving a referral to an orthopedic specialist, Petitioner presented to Dr. Harold Schock on September 25, 2019. Ex. 5 at 52, ECF No. 6. Dr. Schock noted that Petitioner presented with left shoulder pain and reported that “she received her flu shot in October of 2018 and started having shoulder pain right after this.” Id. at 54. Petitioner described her clinical course, including that she experienced improvement following PT. Id. She continued, “[h]owever, since the flu shot[,] she has continued to have constant, aching pain.” Id. Dr. Schock noted that Petitioner’s pain was “located over the lateral and anterior aspects of the shoulder.” Id. Petitioner indicated her pain was exacerbated by lying on her shoulder, driving, weather changes, reaching behind her back, and getting dressed. Id. at 54–55. On exam, Dr. Schock noted decreased ROM, 4/5 strength of the supraspinatus and strength with external rotation, tenderness to palpation over the anterior biceps tendon/rotator cuff, and pain with impingement. Id. at 57. Petitioner’s shoulder x-ray revealed no abnormalities. Id. at 78. Dr. Schock assessed Petitioner with left shoulder biceps tendonitis, impingement syndrome, and rotator cuff tendonitis. Id. at 57. He recommended a steroid injection and a course of PT. Id. Petitioner declined the injection and opted to try Meloxicam, an anti-inflammatory, with PT. Id. Petitioner presented to a different physical therapist, Dr. Amber Wisnicky, on October 11, 2019. Ex. 4 at 303. Dr. Wisnicky noted the date of onset of Petitioner’s injury as “Oct[tober] 2018.” Id. at 304. Specifically, Petitioner reported “she got the flu shot last 5 Petitioner had a routine mammogram on March 27, 2019. Ex. 4 at 69–73. 6 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 7 of 14 year; had pain in her shoulder following[,]” for which she treated with PT. Id. Despite improvement with reaching overhead, she still had an ache in her shoulder following her original course of PT. Id. Petitioner explained to Dr. Wisnicky that the reason she did not return to PT despite ongoing pain was “due to financial reasons and [a] busy schedule[,]” so she “chose to try to do her exercises independently.” Id. She indicated that she “discontinued [her HEP] at [the] start of [the] summer since she did not notice any change in symptoms since ending therapy.” Id. Petitioner also reported that “[a]bout one week [prior to this visit], [she] moved her shoulder and had sharp pain[,]” which made it difficult to move and lift her arm. Id. Petitioner described pain in the anterior left shoulder and posterior and lateral area “with slight radiation toward [her] neck but [it] stops short of [her] neck.” Id. She also “[r]ecently” noticed tingling and “some numbness on the left 5th digit[,]” mostly with driving and washing her hands. Id. She rated her shoulder pain intensity at a 4–5/10, with a typical range of 4–9/10. Id. Dr. Wisnicky recommended PT once per week for twelve weeks. Id. at 307. Petitioner attended six additional PT sessions on October 18, October 23, November 6, November 15, November 22, and December 6, 2019. Ex. 4 at 308–17. Throughout this course of PT, Petitioner reported a gradual improvement in her shoulder pain. See, e.g., id. at 308–316 (notations revealing Petitioner rated her pain at a 3/10 during her sessions throughout October of 2019, and a 1/10 during her November and December sessions). She described her shoulder pain as “dull” and “achy.” See id. In addition to her left shoulder pain, Petitioner also continued to complain of numbness and tingling. Id. For example, on October 18, 2019, Petitioner reported “numbness in her 4–5 digits” especially when driving and turning to the right. Id. at 308–09. On October 23, 2019, Petitioner indicated her shoulder pain (rated at a 3/10) had not been waking her up at night, but that she was experiencing “numbness in her 5th and at times 4th digit[,]” which was continuing to get worse with driving, turning to the right, and reaching behind her back. Id. at 310. She also noted decreased coordination in her 5th digit. Id. Petitioner expressed these symptoms were “more of her concerns than the shoulder pain.” Id. Dr. Wisnicky’s assessment included “numbness along [the] C8 nerve root into left hand[.]” Id. On November 6, 2019, Petitioner reported continued shoulder achiness but that the numbness and tingling in her left arm had “significantly decreased” after she made changes to “her posture and body mechanics at work.” Id. at 311–12. By the time of her final PT session on December 6, 2019, Petitioner did not complain of numbness or tingling but noted that she had a “dull ache in the lateral arm.” Id. at 316. Dr. Wisnicky instructed Petitioner to continue her HEP and to return in two weeks if her “dull ache” in the shoulder continued. Id. at 317. Petitioner returned to NP Fowler for her annual physical on July 1, 2020. Ex. 8 at 203, ECF No. 18. Petitioner denied any musculoskeletal complaints but reported 7 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 8 of 14 numbness and tingling in her left hand. Id. at 204. An exam of Petitioner’s left shoulder revealed no abnormalities. Id. at 206. In her affidavit, authored on November 9, 2020, Petitioner attested that, at that time, she “continue[d] to experience daily achiness and pain with simple every day [sic] tasks, such as[] shoveling snow, sweeping, reaching with [her] left hand . . . turning the steering wheel to the right, and lifting grocery bags.” Ex. 6 at 3. She further noted occasional numbness in her left 4th and 5th digits, which causes her anxiety at work with handling sharp instruments. Id. Petitioner wrote she “hope[s] that someday [she] will return to baseline.” Id. On January 20, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Schock for a second orthopedic consult for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 9 at 18, ECF No. 18. Petitioner reported she was no longer taking medication or treating for her shoulder pain. Id. at 23. She also reported that PT “seemed to help her motion and pain but [] she continued to have some intermittent achiness in the shoulder since.” Id. Following x-rays and a physical exam, Dr. Schock diagnosed Petitioner with possible rotator cuff tendonitis, a possible SLAP tear, and impingement syndrome to the left shoulder. Id. at 25. He suggested PT and a steroid injection, but Petitioner declined at the time. Id. at 26. On March 10, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Schock’s office for a steroid injection. Id. at 10–11. No additional medical records have been filed. IV. Findings of Fact A. Factual Findings Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. 1. Prior Condition The first QAI requirement for a Table SIRVA is lack of a history revealing problems associated with the affected shoulder which were experienced prior to vaccination and would explain the symptoms experienced after vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner meets the first requirement under the QAI for a Table SIRVA. Additionally, I do not find any evidence that Petitioner suffered a pre-vaccination history of problems that would explain her post-vaccination shoulder symptoms. 8 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 9 of 14 2. Onset of Pain A petitioner alleging a SIRVA claim must also show that she experienced the first symptom or onset within 48 hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)), and that her pain began within that same 48-hour period (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI criteria)). Respondent argues that Petitioner is unable to meet this requirement because “the contemporaneous medical records do not establish that [she] suffered the first symptoms or manifestation of onset of a shoulder injury within forty-eight hours of her October 14, 2018 flu vaccination.” Resp. at 9. I find, however, that the totality of the record supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s shoulder pain most likely began within 48 hours of receiving her October 14, 2018 flu vaccination. Thus, at her first post-vaccination medical appointment (for this is not a case with intervening records that rebut Petitioner’s contentions) on December 28, 2018, Petitioner specifically complained of “[l]eft shoulder pain since [O]ct[ober] 14th[, 2018].” Ex. 4 at 45 (emphasis added). NP Fowler noted that Petitioner’s shoulder pain had “been going on for the past two and half months,” and that Petitioner did not “feel that this [wa]s getting better, [but rather wa]s becoming more persistent.” Id. at 48. Just roughly two weeks later – at a January 11, 2019 initial PT evaluation - Petitioner again attributed her symptoms to the vaccination at issue and noted the date of onset of her injury as “Oct[ober] 14, 2018.” Id. at 291. She stated that her shoulder was “really sore after which is typical; however, after [] a week period she still noticed shoulder discomfort with putting on shirts [and s]ince then” has experienced limited ROM. Id. at 292. Furthermore, the affidavit submitted by Petitioner is consistent with the evidence contained in her medical records, that her shoulder pain began immediately post vaccination, and I have found no reason not to deem such evidence credible otherwise. See Ex. 6 at 1–2. Petitioner’s two-and-a-half-month treatment delay does not undermine her onset assertions. Indeed, I have found greater delays not to have undermined an otherwise- preponderantly-established showing of two-day onset. See, e.g., Tenneson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2018), mot. for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (2019) (finding a 48-hour onset of shoulder pain despite a nearly six-month delay in seeking treatment); Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-830V, 2019 WL 1040410, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019) (noting a delay in seeking treatment for five-and-a-half months because a petitioner underestimated the severity of her shoulder injury); Knauss v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 16-1372V, 2018 WL 3432906 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2018) (noting a three-month delay in seeking treatment). At most, the delay speaks to the separate issue of Petitioner’s pain and suffering. 9 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 10 of 14 3. Scope of Pain and Limited Range of Motion The third QAI requirement for a Table SIRVA requires a petitioner’s pain and reduced range of motion to be “limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner has met the third requirement under the QAI for a Table SIRVA. Additionally, I do not find any evidence that Petitioner suffered pain or reduced ROM outside of her left shoulder in which the vaccine at issue was administered. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has met the third criterion to establish a Table SIRVA. I must note that the degree of pain and ROM issues and the hardships they imposed in this case on Petitioner appear fairly limited – a factor that will be taken into account in calculating damages. 4. Other Condition or Abnormality The last QAI criteria for a Table SIRVA states that there must be no other condition or abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner meets this criterion, and there is insufficient evidence in the record to the contrary. While Petitioner complained of numbness and tingling in her left 4th and 5th digits, there is no evidence that Petitioner’s treaters suspected or diagnosed her with any condition or abnormality that would explain such symptoms or link those complaints to her shoulder pain. Thus, the record contains preponderant evidence establishing that there is no other condition or abnormality which would explain the symptoms of Petitioner’s left shoulder injury. I must note, however, that any alleged symptoms outside the scope of Petitioner’s SIRVA should not be considered in the calculation of damages. B. Severity While Petitioner has satisfied her burden under the QAI for a Table SIRVA, the final issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that she suffered “residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). There appears to be no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 14, 2018, and she therefore must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual symptoms continued for more than six months thereafter from the onset of her symptoms. See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 10 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 11 of 14 3889070, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4–5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012) (dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's Guillain-Barré syndrome resolved less than two months after onset). To satisfy the six-month requirement, “[a] potential petitioner must do something more than merely submit a petition and an affidavit parroting the words of the statute.” Faup v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-87V, 2015 WL 443802, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 13, 2015). Rather, a petitioner is required to “submit supporting documentation which reasonably demonstrates that the alleged injury or its sequelae lasted more than six months[.]” Id. Although a petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury merely through self-assertion, the fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care before the expiration of the six-month period does not necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from his or her alleged injury. See, e.g., Herren, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (finding that a petitioner suffered from residual symptoms that due to their mild nature did not require medical care). As discussed above, Petitioner’s treatment records and affidavit suggest that the onset of her symptoms began within 48 hours of her October 14, 2018 flu vaccination – or by no later than October 16, 2018. Therefore, she logically must demonstrate that her left shoulder injury was extant as of April 16, 2019. Petitioner initially sought treatment for her shoulder injury on December 28, 2018, and continued until her discharge from PT on February 22, 2019, approximately four months post onset. Respondent thus maintains that this record suggests recovery before the April 2019 six-month “deadline.” Indeed, Respondent notes, Petitioner’s PT and PCP records from the February 2019 treatment event reveal that her shoulder pain had improved by that date, with a “self-reported pain level” of 1/10 and a normal physical exam. Resp. at 9 (citing Ex. 4 at 58–59, 62, 302). And thereafter, there was a nearly seven-month gap in treatment between her discharge from PT on February 22, 2019, and her return to care on September 16, 2019. Despite these undisputed facts, the record also reveals that Petitioner’s symptoms did continue – even after February 2019. At the time of Petitioner’s discharge from PT on February 22, 2019, Petitioner’s physical therapist, Dr. Sigl, memorialized the fact that Petitioner was still “notic[ing] the pain more with taking her shirt off.” Ex. 4 at 302. Dr. Sigl thus told Petitioner to continue her HEP independently for the next thirty days (until approximately March 24, 2019,) and to return “if any symptoms progress[ed].” Id. at 302– 03. This record undermines Respondent’s contention that Petitioner’s symptoms had now resolved (even if they had unquestionably improved). 11 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 12 of 14 Additionally, the record shows that Petitioner continued her HEP for more than the prescribed thirty days (thus past March 24, 2019). Petitioner’s affidavit also establishes that following her discharge from PT, she continued her HEP (as well as other home remedies such as over-the-counter medications and ice packs) without success up until she “ultimately” sought continued care in the fall of 2019. Ex. 6 at 2–3. It is true that Petitioner’s affidavit is not specific regarding how long she continued her HEP. See id. But the medical records provide some context for the timeline provided in her affidavit. Petitioner’s October 11, 2019 PT record, for example, indicates that she “discontinued [her HEP] at [the] start of summer since she did not notice any change in symptoms since ending therapy.” Ex. 4 at 304. This would, at worst, place the cessation of her injury past April 16, 2019. Furthermore, Petitioner’s explanation for why she did not return for treatment during the nearly seven-month period, despite the existence of pain, was persuasive and supported by the record. Petitioner told her treater on October 11, 2019, that despite still having an ache in her shoulder following her discharge from PT in February of 2019, “due to financial reasons and [a] busy schedule[,] she chose to try to do her exercises independently.” Ex. 4 at 304. When she failed to notice relief, she even discontinued her HEP. See id. Petitioner’s affidavit corroborates the notation in her medical record and provides further explanation for why it was cost prohibitive to seek medical treatment during the February – September 2019 gap. See generally Ex. 6. And her explanation is bolstered by the fact that Petitioner is a single mother of two daughters and therefore reasonably cannot afford additional expenses and PT on a dental hygienist’s salary. Id. at 2. Otherwise, the lack of evidence of continuous treatment does not prevent a finding that severity of injury persisted beyond six months of onset. See, e.g., Herren, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3. The record clearly establishes that Petitioner opted for self-care (HEP, over-the-counter medication, and ice packs) during much of this period, based on the recommendations she received from her physical therapist at her time of discharge in February 2019 and due to her own personal circumstances. Ex. 4 at 302; Ex. 6. Petitioner’s statements in her affidavit do not contradict the records themselves, but provide additional context of time and circumstances that lead to her decision to forego formal treatment for nearly seven months. Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Finally, Petitioner’s fall 2019 medical records confirm the existence of ongoing sequelae. When Petitioner called her PCP’s office seeking a referral to orthopedics for her shoulder pain on September 16, 2019, she reported that she was “still having problems with her left shoulder.” Ex. 4 at 81. She also stated it had “been aching for a 12 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 13 of 14 long time.” Id. When Petitioner established orthopedic care on September 25, 2019, she reported that she “received her flu shot in October of 2018 and started having shoulder pain right after this,” adding that it had persisted since. Ex. 5 at 54. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of these records, and I find Petitioner’s reports to medical treaters worthy of appropriate weight. See Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (finding medical records warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence as they are “generally contemporaneous to the medical events,” and “accuracy has an extra premium” because a patient’s “proper treatment is hanging in the balance.”). Thus, after consideration of the entire record, the evidence supports a finding that severity has been met. (Certainly, however, the treatment gap plus Petitioner’s comfort at self-directed treatment efforts all underscore that this is a mild SIRVA that did not require surgery – and any damages that may be awarded in this case will take such factors into account). C. Other Requirements for Entitlement Based on the above, I find that Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA and is entitled to a presumption of causation. However, even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table injury or established causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). The overall record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements. The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in her left shoulder on October 14, 2018, in Wisconsin. Ex. 1 at 3; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award for his injury. Ex. 7, ECF No. 7; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Additionally, as stated above, I have found that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her shoulder injury for more than six months. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six- month requirement). Thus, based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table SIRVA – albeit a limited and fairly mild case. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation.6 I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. 6 Because I have found that Petitioner has demonstrated a Table injury, there is no need to address Petitioner’s “causation-in-fact” allegation. 13 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 30 Filed 07/31/23 Page 14 of 14 D. Conclusion Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA and the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement for both Table and non-Table claims. Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. A subsequent order will set further proceedings towards resolving damages. (I reiterate my earlier points, however, that this case is not one in which a large pain and suffering award (even approaching $50,000.00) is called for, and therefore Petitioner must factor in the overall mild nature of the injury in seeking damages). Thus, Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 14 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01560-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-09-11 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/11/2023) regarding 32 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1560V VIRGINIA LAMINE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 11, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 10, 2020, Virginia Lamine 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on October 14, 2018. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. at 8-9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 30, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 28. On August 10, 2023, Respondent filed a 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). Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 5 Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $42,500.00. Proffer at 2, ECF No. 31. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $42,500.00 for pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents 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-01560-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS VIRGINIA LAMINE, Petitioner, No. 20-1560V Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On November 10, 2020, Virginia Lamine (“petitioner”) filed a Petition for compensation (“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended (the “Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as a result of an influenza vaccine administered to her on October 14, 2018. Petition at 1. On February 24, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case was not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA. ECF No. 22. On May 24, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for ruling on the record, to which respondent replied on June 15, 2022. ECF No. 23; ECF No. 24. On June 30, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation.1 See Ruling on Entitlement ECF No. 28. 1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s June 30, 2023, entitlement decision. Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 4 of 5 I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $42,500.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $42,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Virginia Lamine: $42,500.00 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01560-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/11/23 Page 5 of 5 ALEXIS B. BABCOCK Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Amanda Pasciuto AMANDA PASCIUTO Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 (202) 616-4847 Amanda.Y.Pasciuto@usdoj.gov Dated: August 10, 2023 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01560-cl-extra-10735524 Date issued/filed: 2024-04-25 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268934 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1560V VIRGINIA LAMINE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: March 26, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On November 10, 2020, Virginia Lamine 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on October 14, 2018. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On August 11, 2023, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner based on Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 32. 1Because 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 $27,849.98 (representing $27,076.00 for fees and $773.98 for costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed Mar. 11, 2024, ECF No. 37. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred $10.00 in out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 38. Respondent reacted to the motion on March 12, 2024, indicating 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. 39. Petitioner filed no reply. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason 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 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 2 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. 37 at 16. Additionally, Petitioner requests an hourly rate of $185 for paralegal work. Id. I find these hourly rates to be reasonable, and will award the attorney’s fees requested. Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding entitlement. See Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, filed May 24, 2022, ECF No. 23; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record, filed Aug. 1, 2022, ECF No. 25. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 8.9 hours drafting the motion for a ruling on the record and 7.2 hours drafting a reply. ECF No. 37 at 13. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s fees requested. However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for the review of a status reports, joint notices, and elections prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 37 at 12, 15 (entries dated 10/25/21, 8/15/23, 9/25/23). 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 settlement demands, it is reasonable to have another set of eyes review that document. See ECF No. 37 at 8, 12, 14 (entries dated 11/4/20, 10/25/21, 7/6/23). 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 $101.50. 3 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but expenses of $12.50 for copying and $18.97 for postage. ECF No. 37 at 16-27 (receipts for attorney’s costs), 27-31 (receipts for Petitioner’s costs). 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. Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $27,758.483 as follows: • A lump sum of 27,748.48, representing reimbursement in the amount of $26,974.50 for attorney’s fees and in the amount of $773.98 for attorney’s costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ronald Craig Homer; and • A lump sum of $10.00, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, Section 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991). 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4