VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01755 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01755 Petitioner: Malanda Dixon Filed: 2020-12-03 Decided: 2024-10-08 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-12-07 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 81600 AI-assisted case summary: Malanda Dixon filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on December 7, 2017. Although the vaccine administration record indicated the vaccines were given in her left arm, the court found that the preponderance of the evidence, including consistent reports to treaters and affidavits, supported that the vaccines were administered in her right shoulder. The court determined that Ms. Dixon met the Table claim requirements for SIRVA, including no prior history of right shoulder pain, onset within 48 hours of vaccination, pain limited to the right shoulder, and no other condition explaining her symptoms. She also met the statutory requirements of suffering residual effects for more than six months and undergoing surgical intervention. The ruling on entitlement was issued on June 20, 2024. Subsequently, on October 8, 2024, a decision was issued awarding Ms. Dixon $81,600.00 in compensation. This award included $80,000.00 for pain and suffering, $474.84 for past unreimbursable expenses, and amounts to satisfy Tennessee Medicaid liens totaling $1,125.22. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01755-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-07-22 Pages: 9 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/20/2024) regarding 43 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 9 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1755V UNPUBLISHED MALANDA DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 20, 2024 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact; Influenza Vaccine; Pneumococcal Respondent. Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for petitioner. Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On December 3, 2020, Malanda Dixon 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”) caused by influenza (“flu”) vaccine and/or a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (“PCV”) administered on December 7, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons described below I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. 1 Because this unpublished fact 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 fact 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-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 9 I. Relevant Procedural History Petitioner filed this claim on December 3, 2020. ECF No. 1. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending that entitlement be denied. ECF No. 33. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a ruling on the Record on February 24, 2023. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (Entitlement) (“Mot.”), ECF No. 35. Petitioner argues therein that she meets the Table Claim requirements for a SIRVA. Mot. at 7-12. Respondent filed a response on March 24, 2023. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 37. Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of a Table claim because Petitioner alleges a right SIRVA but received vaccines in her left arm. Opp. at 9-12. Petitioner filed a reply on April 28, 2023, addressing Respondent’s arguments. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (Entitlement) (“Reply”), ECF No. 42. II. Petitioner’s Medical Records On December 7, 2017, Petitioner received flu and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Ex. 15 at 13-14. Petitioner’s records include a prior history of cervical radiculopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, and cervicalgia. Ex. 3 at 63-74; Ex. 5 at 24-25; Ex. 7 at 5-15. However, there is no history of pain or dysfunction of her right shoulder. The record states that both vaccines were administered in Petitioner’s left arm. Ex. 15 at 13-14. One week later, Petitioner presented to her primary care provider and was seen by Physician’s Assistant (“PA”) Tiffany Bryant reporting that she “received a Flu and pneumonia shot in her right arm one week ago at Rite Aid and has pain in arm since….” Ex. 3 at 76. A Medrol Dosepak was prescribed. Id. Petitioner returned to PA Bryant on December 21, 2017, complaining of continued right shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 86. Her pain was reportedly aggravated with movement. Id. An examination showed tenderness and mild pain with motion. Id. at 88. An x-ray taken on December 21, 2017, was unremarkable. Id. at 84. Petitioner returned to PA Bryant on December 27, 2017, for right arm pain. PA Bryant noted that Petitioner had experienced pain since she received the flu vaccine and PCV in her “R upper arm.” Id. Thereafter, Petitioner visited to Daniel Schrock, D.C., for eight chiropractic treatments between December 28, 2017, and February 15, 2018. Ex. 4 at 5-12. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 3 of 9 On January 23, 2018, Petitioner saw PA Lacie Baker for an orthopedic consultation at OrthoGo. Ex. 5 at 5. She reported pain in her right shoulder that began “after receiving 2 vaccinations in her right arm.” Id. Upon examination, Petitioner’s right shoulder was tender and positive for impingement testing. Id. PA Baker administered a steroid injection into her right shoulder. Id. Petitioner again presented to OrthoGo on February 5, 2018, and saw PA Jeffrey Norton. Ex. 5 at 6. She reported right shoulder pain that started after a flu shot, rating it as five out of ten in severity and “constant.” Id. An examination showed mild swelling, slight decreased range of motion, and positive impingement testing. Id. A second steroid injection was administered at that time. Id. On February 19, 2018, Petitioner returned to PA Norton with continued reports of shoulder pain that started “after having a flu shot and pneumonia shot.” Id. at 7. Petitioner was assessed with moderate tendinitis of the right rotator cuff and a third steroid injection was administered. Id. Petitioner returned to PA Norton for right shoulder pain on March 5, 2018. Ex. 5 at 8. PA Norton noted Petitioner had moderate tendinitis of her right rotator cuff that she rated as two out of ten. Id. A fourth steroid injection was administered. Petitioner had an initial physical therapy evaluation with physical therapist Celeste Crider on March 9, 2018. Ex. 6 at 12-16. She reported that she had a flu vaccine and a PCV in her right scheduler on December 7, 2017, and experienced pain later that day from her shoulder to her hand. Id. at 12. She attended five therapy sessions between March 9 and March 22, 2018. Id. at 12-16, 19-26. On August 27, 2018, Petitioner had an MRI of her right shoulder, which revealed tendinopathy and a high-grade tear of the anterior supraspinatus muscle, patchy marrow edema, mild-to-moderate subdeltoid bursal fluid, among other conditions. Ex. 5 at 4. She presented to PA Baker at OrthoGo on August 28, 2018 for continued, constant shoulder pain she rated as eight out of ten. Id. at 9. Surgery was recommended due to a “very large” rotator cuff tear. Id. Petitioner was next seen for shoulder pain on September 17, 2018, when a Lidoderm patch was provided. Ex. 3 at 109. Then, on March 18, 2019, she saw PA Bryant for reported shoulder pain. Id. at 122. Her shoulder was described as chronic and stable, and Petitioner was told to follow-up when she was ready to proceed with surgical intervention. 3 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 4 of 9 In subsequent records, Petitioner’s problem list continued to indicate chronic right arm and shoulder pain through 2022, but there is no record of specific treatments after March 18, 2019. Ex. 19 at 18-15. III. Affidavit Evidence Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of her claim. Ex. 1. She stated that the vaccinations were administered in her right arm. Destiny Weaver, Petitioner’s daughter, submitted an affidavit as well. Ex. 16. Ms. Weaver stated that she was with Petitioner when the vaccinations were administered and recalls both were given to her right arm. Id. at 1-2. Further, Ms. Weaver stated that Petitioner is left-handed and chose her right shoulder for the vaccination site. Id. at 2. IV. Parties’ Arguments Petitioner asserts that she has suffered an On-Table right shoulder SIRVA, and that the vaccinations were administered in her right shoulder. Mot. at 7-12. Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to show she is entitled to compensation. Specifically, Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot establish a right shoulder SIRVA Table claim because the records indicate her vaccinations were administered in her left arm. Opp. at 9-12. V. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement 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). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a). Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48 3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). 4 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 5 of 9 hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following: (i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; (ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame; (iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and (iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy, brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy). 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03- 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id. 5 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 6 of 9 Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 204 (2013) (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational). A. Factual Findings Regarding a 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. Petitioner Likely Received the Flu Vaccine and the PCV in her Right Shoulder Respondent contends that, although Petitioner alleges a right SIRVA, the vaccine records indicate that the vaccines were given in her left arm. Opp. at 9-10. Respondent’s reading of the administration record is literally correct (see Ex. 15 at 13-14 (stating the vaccines were administered in Petitioner’s left arm)), but his argument does not take into account the totality of the evidence, which soundly supports a right-side vaccine administration finding. The overall medical records, coupled with Petitioner’s witness statement, establish that Petitioner consistently and repeatedly reported to treaters right shoulder pain that was caused by a PCV and flu vaccine received in that shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 76 (record stating that Petitioner reported right shoulder pain that started when she received a flu and pneumonia shot in her right arm); id. at 91 (reporting right shoulder pain since “given flu vax and Prevnar 13 in R upper arm”); Ex. 5 at 5 (stating that Petitioner’s right shoulder pain began “after receiving 2 vaccinations in her right arm.”) Further, Petitioner consistently sought care for her right shoulder due to pain she linked to those two 6 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 7 of 9 vaccinations. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 7 (record stating Petitioner reported continued right shoulder pain that “came about after having a flu shot and pneumonia shot in the right shoulder…”). Additionally, Petitioner’s affidavits provide corroborating evidence. For example, Ms. Weaver states that Petitioner is left-handed and chose to receive the vaccinations in her non-dominant right arm. Ex. 16 at 1-2. These records provide sufficient evidence that the vaccines were likely administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder to overcome the contrary administration record. The subsequent treatment records gain strength as well given their temporal proximity to the date of vaccination. The only contrary record comes from the administration record itself. While that document is both the first contemporaneous item of evidence relevant to this fact dispute, it finds no other corroboration in the overall record – and I do not give it excessive weight simply, since it is consistently observed in SIRVA cases in the Program that computer-generated administration records are frequently incorrect, or are completed based on assumptions about what arm will receive the vaccine in most cases – but without taking into account the relevant petitioner’s circumstances. See, e.g., Schoenborn v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0227V, 2024 WL 1342999, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 28, 2024) (noting that it is repeatedly observed in Program cases that “it is not unusual for the information regarding site of vaccination in computerized systems to be incorrect”) (internal citations omitted); Cook v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21- 1029V, 2022 WL 3012304, at *4 (Fed. Cl. June 29, 2022) (noting that information regarding site of vaccination in computerized systems is not always correct and often uses a ‘dropdown’ menu which may not be updated each time a separate vaccine is administered to a different individual). 2. No Prior Right Shoulder Condition or Injury Would Explain Petitioner’s Symptoms Another requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Petitioner’s records do not contain evidence of a prior condition or injury that would explain her current symptoms. Ex. 3 at 14-74; Ex. 5 at 14-17 and 24-27; Ex. 7 at 5-17; Ex. 8; Ex. 12; and Ex. 13 at 5-80. Additionally, Respondent does not contest that Petitioner meets this criterion for a Table SIRVA. Report at 2; Opp. at 3.4 Therefore, Petitioner meets this requirement. 4 Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, but “reserves the right to address” Petitioner’s arguments at a later time. Opp. at 9 n.3. 7 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 8 of 9 3. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of her Vaccinations I also find that there is a preponderance of evidence that onset of Petitioner’s injury was within forty-eight hours of her vaccinations. Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and the medical records, coupled with Petitioner’s witness statement, establish onset of her injury close-in-time to vaccination. Ex. 3 at 76 (reporting pain in Petitioner’s arm since she received the flu vaccine and the PCV). 4. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Right Shoulder The evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s pain was limited to her right shoulder. Respondent does not contest this aspect of the claim, and the records consistently report shoulder pain and loss of range of motion in her right shoulder, which is consistent with other SIRVA cases. Petitioner’s medical procedures were also limited to her right shoulder. Accordingly, preponderant evidence establishes that Petitioner’s pain was limited to her right shoulder. 5. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality that would Explain Petitioner’s Current Symptoms The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state 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 does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and the records do not contain any evidence that another condition or abnormality that would explain Petitioner’s symptoms. B. Other Requirements for Entitlement In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner 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 and PCV on December 7, 2017, in the United States. Ex. 15 at 13-14; 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 her injury. Ex. 1; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). 8 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/22/24 Page 9 of 9 As stated above, I have found that the onset of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain was within 48 hours of her vaccinations, and that those vaccinations were administered in her right shoulder. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (setting forth this requirement). I have also found that there is no other condition which would explain Petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) (listing a time frame of 48 hours for a Table SIRVA following receipt of the influenza vaccine). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for a Table SIRVA. The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the duration of her SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer the residual effects of his or her left shoulder injury for more than six months or required surgical intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). The records demonstrate, and Respondent does not contest, that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her shoulder injury for more than six months and underwent two surgical procedures. Ex. 5 at 9. Thus, this requirement is also met. Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Conclusion In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on 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 9 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01755-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-08 Pages: 6 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/30/2024) regarding 48 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/08/24 Page 1 of 6 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1755V MALANDA DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for Petitioner. Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 3, 2020, Malanda Dixon 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”) following an influenza vaccine administered on December 7, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 20, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On August 29, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $80,474.84 (comprised of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $474.84 for past unreimbursable expenses), 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-01755-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/08/24 Page 2 of 6 $1107.31.84 to satisfy a Medicaid lien for medical care, and $17.91 to satisfy a Medicaid lien for prescriptions. Proffer at 1-2. 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 the following compensation: • A lump sum of $80,474.84 (comprised of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $474.84 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; • A lump sum of $1,107.31, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for treatment, payable jointly to Petitioner3 and to: BCBST 1 Cameron Hill Circle, Ste. 0008 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-0008 • A lump sum of $17.91, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for prescriptions, payable jointly to Petitioner4 and to: TennCare Casualty Recovery MSC 1414 P.O. Box 305133 Nashville, Tennessee 37230-1414 Proffer at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to BCBST for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for medical treatment. 4 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to TennCare Casualty Recovery for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for prescriptions. 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/08/24 Page 3 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) MALANDA DIXON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 20-1755V (ECF) v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH ) AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 3, 2020, Malanda Dixon (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza vaccine that she received on December 7, 2017. ECF No. 1 at 1. On December 20, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Rule 4(c) report, in which he argued that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she suffered a SIRVA. ECF No. 33. Following briefing by both parties, on June 20, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued his Ruling on Entitlement, in which he found that petitioner was entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 43. 1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s June 20, 2024 Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to an award under the Vaccine Act. This right accrues following the issuance of the damages decision. Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/08/24 Page 4 of 6 I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00 for pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses pertaining to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $474.84. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. C. Medicaid Liens Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy Tennessee Medicaid liens in the amounts of $1,107.31 (for medical treatment) and $17.91 (for prescriptions), which amounts represent full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action that the State of Tennessee may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments that the State of Tennessee has made to or on behalf of petitioner from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her alleged vaccine-related injury suffered on or about December 7, 2017, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/08/24 Page 5 of 6 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 be made through three lump sum payments as described below: 1) A lump sum payment of $80,474.84 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.2 2) A lump sum payment of $1,107.31, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for medical treatment, payable jointly to petitioner and to: BCBST 1 Cameron Hill Circle, Ste. 0008 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-0008 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to BCBST for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for medical treatment. 3) A lump sum payment of $17.91, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for prescriptions, payable jointly to petitioner and to: TennCare Casualty Recovery MSC 1414 P.O. Box 305133 Nashville, Tennessee 37230-1414 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to TennCare Casualty Recovery for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for prescriptions. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 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. 3 Case 1:20-vv-01755-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/08/24 Page 6 of 6 C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Benjamin P. Warder BENJAMIN P. WARDER Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Telephone: (202) 532-5464 Email: Benjamin.P.Warder@usdoj.gov DATE: August 28, 2024 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01755-cl-extra-10734065 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-08 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267475 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1755V MALANDA DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for Petitioner. Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On December 3, 2020, Malanda Dixon 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”) following an influenza vaccine administered on December 7, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 20, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On August 29, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $80,474.84 (comprised of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $474.84 for past unreimbursable expenses), 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). $1107.31.84 to satisfy a Medicaid lien for medical care, and $17.91 to satisfy a Medicaid lien for prescriptions. Proffer at 1-2. 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 the following compensation: • A lump sum of $80,474.84 (comprised of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering and $474.84 for past unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; • A lump sum of $1,107.31, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for treatment, payable jointly to Petitioner 3 and to: BCBST 1 Cameron Hill Circle, Ste. 0008 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-0008 • A lump sum of $17.91, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for prescriptions, payable jointly to Petitioner 4 and to: TennCare Casualty Recovery MSC 1414 P.O. Box 305133 Nashville, Tennessee 37230-1414 Proffer at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to BCBST for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for medical treatment. 4 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to TennCare Casualty Recovery for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for prescriptions. 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) MALANDA DIXON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 20-1755V (ECF) v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH ) AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 3, 2020, Malanda Dixon (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza vaccine that she received on December 7, 2017. ECF No. 1 at 1. On December 20, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Rule 4(c) report, in which he argued that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she suffered a SIRVA. ECF No. 33. Following briefing by both parties, on June 20, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued his Ruling on Entitlement, in which he found that petitioner was entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 43. 1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s June 20, 2024 Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to an award under the Vaccine Act. This right accrues following the issuance of the damages decision. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00 for pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses pertaining to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $474.84. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. C. Medicaid Liens Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy Tennessee Medicaid liens in the amounts of $1,107.31 (for medical treatment) and $17.91 (for prescriptions), which amounts represent full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action that the State of Tennessee may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments that the State of Tennessee has made to or on behalf of petitioner from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her alleged vaccine-related injury suffered on or about December 7, 2017, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 2 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 be made through three lump sum payments as described below: 1) A lump sum payment of $80,474.84 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.2 2) A lump sum payment of $1,107.31, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for medical treatment, payable jointly to petitioner and to: BCBST 1 Cameron Hill Circle, Ste. 0008 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-0008 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to BCBST for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for medical treatment. 3) A lump sum payment of $17.91, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Tennessee Medicaid lien for prescriptions, payable jointly to petitioner and to: TennCare Casualty Recovery MSC 1414 P.O. Box 305133 Nashville, Tennessee 37230-1414 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to TennCare Casualty Recovery for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien for prescriptions. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 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. 3 C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Benjamin P. Warder BENJAMIN P. WARDER Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Telephone: (202) 532-5464 Email: Benjamin.P.Warder@usdoj.gov DATE: August 28, 2024 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01755-cl-extra-10845395 Date issued/filed: 2025-04-15 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10378807 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1755V MALANDA DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: March 14, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for Petitioner. Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On December 3, 2020, Malanda Dixon 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”) following an influenza vaccine administered on December 7, 2017. Petition at 1. On August 30, 2024, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner, based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 48. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $60,777.72 as follows: 1. $58,777.55 (representing $57,281.20 for fees and $1,496.35 for costs) for Petitioner’s counsel’s law firm, Black, McLaren, Jones, Ryland, & Griffee (“BMJRG”); and 2. $2,000.17 (representing $1,827.00 for fees and $173.17 for costs)3 for prior Petitioner’s counsel’s law firm, Dupont & Blumensteil. Petitioner Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed Nov. 22, 2024, ECF No. 53. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 53-3. Respondent reacted to the motion on December 2, 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. 55. Petitioner did not file a reply. Having reviewed of the billing records submitted with Petitioner's requests, I find reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons listed below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to successful claimants. 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 3 Although Petitioner characterized this total ($2,000.17) as attorney’s fees, a review of the billing records shows $173.17 were paid costs for obtaining medical records. Compare ECF No. 53 at 1, 7 with ECF No. 53-4. 2 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 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 by the attorneys and paralegals at BMJRG through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. However, Petitioner has failed to provide adequate documentation to support the hourly rate of $350 for the 0.9 hours of time billed in 2018 and 2020, by the unnamed attorney at Dupont & Blumensteil. ECF No. 53-4 at (entries dated 9/5/18 and 9/1/20). Presumedly, this work was performed by Braden Blumensteil, who appears to be the only attorney at the firm admitted to practice at this Court. However, the hourly rate previously awarded for Mr. Blumensteil’s 2018 and 2020 work was $225. As Petitioner has provided no support for a greater hourly rate, or further explanation as to why the attorney’s fees should be fully awarded,4 I will use the lower, and previously awarded, hourly rate ($225) when awarding attorney’s fees in this case. This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $112.50.5 Regarding the time billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to briefing entitlement to be excessive – although not egregiously so. See Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record (Entitlement), filed Feb. 24, 2023, ECF No. 35; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (Entitlement), 4 I note that if another attorney at this firm performed the work (instead of Mr. Blumensteil), the hourly rate would likely be lower. The work of attorney’s who have not yet been admitted to the bar is generally reimbursed using the highest paralegal rate. 5 This amount consists of ($350 - $225) x 0.9 hrs. = $112.50. 3 filed Apr. 28, 2023, ECF No. 42. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 11.7 hours drafting the entitlement brief and 16.1 hours drafting the reply brief, totaling 27.86 hours. ECF No. 53-2 at 14-16. It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the issue of entitlement in this case, where the issues presented are not complex. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter), 7 in which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.8 See, e.g., Fletcher v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0127V (Apr. 25, 2024) (12.7 and 9.0 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Lamine v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1560V (Mar. 27, 2024) (8.9 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Davenport v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0206V (Mar. 25, 2024) (16.5 and 2.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and a responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Graczyk v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0376V (Feb. 9, 2024) (5.8 and 8.3 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Sisneros v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-2070V (Feb. 8, 2024) (0.8 and 10.5 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Strand v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0365V (Feb. 5, 2024) (7.9 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and a responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Griswold v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1674V (May 30, 2024) (5.0 and 2.0 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); McCallum v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1991V (May 19, 2023) (8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief); Weso v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0596V (May 16, 2024) (6.0 and 1.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively). Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate. ECF No. 48. But the Act permits only an award of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for entitlement briefing (a total of 27.8 6 This total is calculated as follows: 27.2 hours billed on 1/19/23, 2/1/23, 2/14/23, 2/22//23, 2/23/23, 2/24/23, 3/27/23 (two entries), 3/28/23, 3/29/23, 4/12/23, 4/13/23, 4/26/23, and 4/28/23, by William Cochran, at a rate of $450; and 0.6 hours billed on 2/1/23 and 4/13/23, by Christopher Webb at a rate of $410. ECF No. 53-2 at 14-16. 7 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 8 These decisions can be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited Mar. 24, 2024). 4 hours, or $12,486.00) by twenty percent.9 Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)10 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant” in identifying with specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub-area of work performed on the case. This results in a reduction of $2,497.20.11 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs expended by BMJRG. ECF No. 53-2 at 19-36. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. However, Petitioner did not provide supporting receipts for the amount of costs sought by Petitioner’s prior law firm, Dupont and Blumensteil. As required by the Vaccine Rules, “Petitioner must include any and all materials necessary to substantiate the request, including, but not limited to, the contents specified in the Second Supplement to Appendix B.” Vaccine Rule 13(a)(1) (revised July 29, 2024); see Second Supplement to Appendix B Attorney’s Fees and Costs 2. Attorney’s Costs (2023). Disallowing these costs results in a reduction of $173.17.12 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 $57,994.85 (representing $54,784.00 for attorney’s fees and $1,496.35 attorney’s in costs for a total of $56,280.35 to BMRJG; and $1,714.50 in attorney’s fees to Dupont and Blumensteil) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In 9Because the amount of excessive hours was not as egregious as in previous cases, I will reduce the hours billed by a lower amount than I otherwise would apply. See, e.g., Callejas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1767V, 2023 WL 9288086 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 24, 2023). 10 Special masters are permitted to employ percentage reductions to hours billed, provided the reduction is sufficiently explained. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107, 111 (2017); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 702-704 (2016); Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 214 (2009). 11 This amount is calculated as follows: (27.2 hrs. x $450 x .20) + (0.6 hrs. x $410 x .20) = $2,497.20. 12 These entries are as follows: 9/19/13 (three entries), 12/20/18, and 4/11/19. ECF No. 53-4 at 2. 5 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.13 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 13 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 6