VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01849 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01849 Petitioner: Kathryn Vashro Filed: 2020-12-14 Decided: 2023-10-12 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-24 Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: dismissed Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Kathryn Vashro filed a petition alleging she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 24, 2019. She claimed this was a Table injury or, alternatively, a caused-in-fact injury. However, the court found that the evidence indicated her pain was more likely a continuation of prior right shoulder pain, failing to meet the SIRVA Table criteria of no prior shoulder pain and onset within 48 hours. Petitioner also failed to provide sufficient evidence for an off-Table claim. Her medical records showed prior right arm pain, which she attributed to a bee sting, but this explanation was not fully supported by her physician's notes or her own descriptions of muscular pain. Furthermore, her reported onset times varied significantly, with some reports occurring weeks or months after vaccination and after she had sought support from groups for vaccine injury. The court noted that her post-vaccination symptoms were similar to her pre-vaccination complaints and that her right arm pain was considered multifactorial. Despite opportunities to provide further evidence, Ms. Vashro declined. Consequently, the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and insufficient evidence, denying entitlement to compensation. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01849-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-10-12 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/05/2023) regarding 27 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1849V UNPUBLISHED KATHRYN VASHRO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 5, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, Dresher, LLP, PA, for Petitioner. Ronaldo Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On December 14, 2020, Kathryn Vashro filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a caused-in- fact injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 24, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 11. However, the record in this case establishes that the pain Petitioner suffered post- vaccination is more likely a continuation of prior right shoulder pain. Therefore, she has failed to satisfy two of the requirements of a Table SIRVA injury (a lack of prior shoulder 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-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 7 pain, and onset within 48 hours of vaccination). See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)XIV(B) & (c)(10)(i)-(ii) (2017). Additionally, and despite due opportunity, Petitioner has not provided the preponderant evidence needed to overcome these deficiencies and succeed under a causation-in-fact claim. See Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (three-pronged test for actual causation). I therefore DENY entitlement in this case. I. Relevant Procedural History Along with the Petition, Ms. Vashro filed a declaration3 and most of the medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-8; Section 11(c). The case was assigned to SPU on February 2, 2021. ECF No. 8. On August 31, 2021, Respondent identified additional medical records which needed to be provided, specifically a more legible copy of the vaccine record, results from any MRI, and updated medical records. ECF No. 13. During the subsequent two months, Petitioner provided the requested medical records. Exhibits 9-12, ECF Nos. 14-15. On April 29, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report challenging compensation because (among other things) Petitioner had failed to demonstrate onset within 48 hours. Rule 4(c) Report at 9-10, ECF No. 20. Respondent also submitted that Petitioner appears to have experienced arm pain (in the relevant arm) prior to vaccination. Id. at 9. Additionally, Respondent maintained Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support a causation-in-fact claim. Id. at 10-11. Following the Rule 4(c) Report, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration4 insisting that her reports of right arm pain prior to vaccination were related to a bee sting. Exhibit 13 at ¶ 3, ECF No. 21. Petitioner also stated that the October 2019 vaccination was painful at administration and continued thereafter. Id. at ¶ 4. On January 20, 2023, I issued an Order to Show Cause, allowing Petitioner a final chance to obtain and to file the evidence needed to support her allegations. ECF No. 24. I informed Petitioner that she needed to provide a logical rationale for her varied reports of onset and an explanation regarding any pre-existing and/or co-existing issues and alternative cause(s). Id. at 5. In response, Petitioner filed a status report indicating she had no other evidence to offer in support of her claim. ECF No. 26. 3 Although characterized as an affidavit, the declaration was not notarized or signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. See Exhibit 2. 4 Like the previously filed declaration, this document was not notarized or signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. See Exhibit 13. 2 Case 1:20-vv-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 3 of 7 The matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Applicable Legal Standards Under Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all requirements for a petition set forth in section 11(c)(1) have been satisfied. A petitioner may prevail on her claim if the vaccinee for whom she seeks compensation 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). According to the most recent version of the Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The specific criteria establishing a SIRVA are as follows: Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction. SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc). SIRVA is not a neurological injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following: (i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; (ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame; (iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and (iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy, brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy). 3 Case 1:20-vv-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 4 of 7 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (additional requirements set forth in the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretations (“QAI”)). If a petitioner establishes that the vaccinee has suffered a “Table Injury,” causation is presumed. If, however, the vaccinee suffered an injury that either is not listed in the Table or did not occur within the prescribed time frame, petitioner must prove that the administered vaccine caused injury to receive Program compensation on behalf of the vaccinee. Section 11(c)(1)(C)(ii) and (iii). In such circumstances, petitioner asserts a “non-Table or [an] off-Table” claim and to prevail, petitioner must prove her claim by preponderant evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). This standard is “one of . . . simple preponderance, or ‘more probable than not’ causation.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279-80 (referencing Hellebrand v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 999 F.2d 1565, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal Circuit has held that to establish an off-Table injury, petitioners must “prove . . . that the vaccine was not only a but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir 1999). Id. at 1352. The received vaccine, however, need not be the predominant cause of the injury. Id. at 1351. The Circuit Court has indicated that petitioners “must show ‘a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury’” to establish that the vaccine was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352-53 (quoting Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Circuit Court added that "[t]here must be a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury.’” Id. The Federal Circuit subsequently reiterated these requirements in its Althen decision. See 418 F.3d at 1278. Althen requires a petitioner to show by preponderant evidence that the vaccination brought about her injury by providing: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury. Id. All three prongs of Althen must be satisfied. Id. Finding a petitioner is entitled to compensation must not be “based on the claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” Section 13(a)(1). Further, contemporaneous medical records are presumed to be accurate and complete in their recording of all relevant information as to petitioner’s medical issues. 4 Case 1:20-vv-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 5 of 7 Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993, F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Testimony offered after the events in questions is considered less reliable than contemporaneous reports because the need for accurate explanation of symptoms is more immediate. Reusser v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 28 Fed. Cl. 516, 523 (1993). III. Analysis In this case, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy QAI criteria one and two. Her varied reports of onset and evidence of pre-existing shoulder pain undercut her assertions of no prior right shoulder pain, and also do not establish pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination. Despite already having reported arm pain in October and November of 2019, Petitioner made no mention of the subject vaccination until December 17, 2019. Exhibit 3 at 20. Then it was not until February 25, 2020 (four months post-vaccination) that Petitioner reported onset occurred “within one week of the influenza injection.” ECF No. 20 at 10; Exhibit 6 at 4. Later, on March 5, 2020, Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain “all started on October 24 of 2019 when she received a flu shot.” Exhibit 5 at 31. While variations in onset reports are common, the evidence preponderates against Table onset here. In particular, the report of onset one-week post-vaccination precludes establishing onset consistent with the SIRVA Table claim requirement. Furthermore, Petitioner did not report a specific onset until after she had “followed up with a group that may help provide support for folks that have had symptoms from the flu shot.” ECF No. 20 at 9; Exhibit 3 at 16. Similarly, when Petitioner reported onset on February 25, 2020, she reported having “researched whether she is having a problem that (sic) SIRVA fund would support feeling that there is a connection between her flu shot and shoulder pain.” Exhibit 6 at 4. There are thus good grounds for giving less weight to the specific cites of onset consistent with the Table, versus the longer onset reported before those other references. More problematic is the issue of pre-existing and/or co-existing pain. Petitioner’s medical records prior to administration of the subject flu vaccine undeniably indicate right arm pain. Exhibit 3 at 23-26; Exhibit 6 at 13-17. Thus, on July 26, 2019, Petitioner reported arm pain in both triceps for more than six months, which she believed was due to overuse. Exhibit 6 at 13. On October 24, 2019, the day of vaccination, Petitioner also reported that her right arm pain radiated to her fingers—she “[felt] it was muscular,” plus radiating pain while putting on her jacket. Id. Petitioner’s physician recommended a chiropractor or massage therapist for her right arm pain. Id. at 26. Later that same day she received the subject flu vaccine in her right arm. Exhibit 1 at 3. 5 Case 1:20-vv-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 6 of 7 Petitioner attempted to minimize this evidence by suggesting that her complaints have had to do with a bee sting - “I remember telling the doctor on that day [October 24, 2019] about the swelling of my finger on my right hand from a bee sting . . . I may have reacted to the bee sting by having pain in my hand and forearm.” Exhibit 13 at ¶ 3. However, Petitioner’s physician addressed the bee sting and arm pain separately, noting different symptoms and recommendations for each. See Exhibit 3 at 24, 26. Furthermore, Petitioner’s explanation does not address and contradicts her own reporting of tingling, pain, and difficulty of a muscular nature. See Exhibit 3 at 24. Moreover, Petitioner’s right arm symptoms post-vaccination are similar to what she previously reported, thus appearing to be a mere continuation of her earlier pain. When Petitioner attended a physical therapy evaluation on November 12, 2019, for right arm pain, Petitioner reported similar issues as what she reported to her physician on October 24, 2019, prior to vaccination: “reaching behind hurt…tingling in digit 4 and 5…dull pain in arm most of time.” Exhibit 4 at 23. The physical therapist also noted “lots of tingling with arm motions.” Id. The record is absent of any mention of vaccination or pain associated with vaccination, and cervicalgia and right arm pain were the diagnoses. See Exhibit 4 at 22-23. Examination revealed impingement, some external rotation weakness, and pain when reaching. Id. at 23. At Petitioner’s appointment on December 17, 2019, Petitioner reported having followed-up with physical therapy for her right arm pain, which was initially reported at her October 24, 2019 appointment. Exhibit 3 at 20. While Petitioner later identified her vaccination as the onset of her pain, and Dr. Karen Boseli “question[ed] as to whether the flu vaccination may have initiated some sort of inflammatory response,” Petitioner has not adequately addressed her pre-existing and/or co-existing issues. Moreover, Petitioner’s right arm pain was addressed as “multifactorial in origin” (Petitioner’s July 2020 MRI showed possible signs of adhesive capsulitis, osteoarthropathy, tendinosis) and presented similar to Petitioner’s chronic left shoulder pain which was diagnosed as cervical radiculopathy. ECF No. 20 at 10; Exhibit 4 at 4, 22-26; Exhibit 5 at 13-16, 26-33; Exhibit 6 at 4-7. Petitioner has failed to address the history of pain in her right arm or distinguish her alleged Table SIRVA from pre- existing and/or co-existing issues. Petitioner was allowed ample opportunity to provide additional evidence and argument regarding these evidentiary shortcomings - but declined to do so. Accordingly, I cannot find on the record as it stands that either a Table SIRVA claim, or non-Table claim, could be sustained. 6 Case 1:20-vv-01849-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/12/23 Page 7 of 7 Conclusion To date, and despite ample opportunity, Petitioner has failed to provide preponderant evidence to support her allegation of a right shoulder injury that meets the definition for a Table SIRVA or was caused by the flu vaccine she received on October 24, 2019. Petitioner was informed that failure to provide preponderant evidence to support her claim would be treated as either a failure to prosecute this claim or as an inability to provide supporting documentation for the claim. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and insufficient evidence. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01849-cl-extra-10736701 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-18 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270111 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1849V KATHRYN VASHRO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 15, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, Dresher, LLP, PA, for Petitioner. Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On December 14, 2020, Kathryn Vashro filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative a caused-in- fact injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 24, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 11. On September 5, 2023, I dismissed Petitioner’s claim. ECF No. 27. I did so based on the determination that there was insufficient proof of a timely onset of Petitioner’s pain, plus some evidence of preexisting right arm pain. Id. at 3-4. 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). On October 4, 2023, Petitioner filed a request for an attorney’s fees award of $15,817.70 ($15,417.70 in fees and $400.00 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees at 2, ECF No. 31. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner represents that she has incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at ¶ 4. Petitioner did not address the statutory requirements of good faith and reasonable basis, however - prerequisites for any attorney’s fees and costs award in unsuccessful cases. See Section 15(e)(1). On October 18, 2023, Respondent filed a response, stating he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs at 2, ECF No. 33. Petitioner did not file a reply. For the reasons discussed below, I find there was a reasonable basis for Petitioner’s claim, and she is otherwise entitled to a fees award despite the dismissal of her claim. And I have reviewed the submitted billing records and find no reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded is needed. I. Reasonable Basis A. Legal Standard Motivated by a desire to ensure that petitioners have adequate assistance from counsel when pursuing their claims, Congress determined that attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded even in unsuccessful claims. H.R. REP. NO. 99-908, at 22 reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6363; see also Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S.Ct. 1886, 1895 (2013) (discussing this goal when determining that attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded even when the petition was untimely filed). This is consistent with the fact that “the Vaccine Program employs a liberal fee-shifting scheme.” Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 627, 634 (2012). Indeed, it may be the only federal fee-shifting statute that permits unsuccessful litigants to recover fees and costs. However, Congress did not intend that every losing petition be automatically entitled to attorney’s fees. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1994). And there is also a prerequisite to even obtaining fees in an unsuccessful case. The special master or court may award attorney’s fees and costs to an unsuccessful claimant only if “the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Section 15(e)(1). Reasonable basis is a prerequisite to a fee award for unsuccessful cases – but establishing it does not automatically require an award, as special masters are still empowered by the Act to deny 2 or limit fees. James-Cornelius on behalf of E. J. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 984 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“even when these two requirements are satisfied, a special master retains discretion to grant or deny attorneys’ fees”). As the Federal Circuit has explained, whether a discretionary fees award is appropriate involves two distinct inquiries, but only reasonable basis is at issue herein.3 Reasonable basis is deemed “an objective test, satisfied through objective evidence.” Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 971 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Cottingham I”). “The reasonable basis requirement examines “not at the likelihood of success [of a claim] but more to the feasibility of the claim.” Turner, 2007 WL 4410030, at *6 (quoting Di Roma v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-3277V, 1993 WL 496981, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 1993)). The Federal Circuit recently explained “that a reasonable basis analysis is limited to objective evidence, and that subjective considerations, such as counsel’s subjective views on the adequacy of a complaint, do not factor into a reasonable basis determination.” James-Cornelius, 984 F.3d at 1379. Although clearly easier to meet than the preponderant standard required for compensation, “courts have struggled with the nature and quantum of evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis.” Wirtshafter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 155 Fed. Cl. 665, 671 (Fed. Cl. 2021). “[I]t is generally accepted that ‘a petitioner must furnish some evidence in support of the claim.’” Id. Citing the prima facie elements of a successful claim described in Section 11(c)(1), the Federal Circuit recently instructed that the level of the objective evidence sufficient for a special master to find reasonable basis should be “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of proof.” Cottingham I, 971 F.3d at 1345-46. “This formulation does not appear to define reasonable basis so much as set its outer bounds.” Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 159 Fed. Cl. 328, 333, (Fed. Cl. 2022) (“Cottingham II”), aff’d without op., slip op. 22-1737 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2023). “[T]he Federal Circuit’s statement that a special master ‘could’ find reasonable basis based upon more than a mere scintilla does not mandate such a finding.” Cottingham II, 159 Fed. Cl. at 333 (citing Cottingham I, 971 F.3d at 1346). Furthermore, the issue of reasonable basis is not a static inquiry. The reasonable basis which existed when a claim was filed may cease to exist as further evidence is presented. Perreira, 33 F.3d at 1377. In Perreira, the Federal Circuit affirmed a special master’s determination that reasonable basis was lost after Petitioner’s “expert opinion, 3 Claimants must also establish that the petition was brought in good faith. Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 875 F.3d 632, 635 (quoting Chuisano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 289 (2014)). “[T]he ‘good faith’ requirement . . . focuses upon whether petitioner honestly believed he had a legitimate claim for compensation.” Turner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-0544V, 2007 WL 4410030, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007). But good faith is not disputed herein, and I do not ascertain evidence in the record calling it into question. 3 which formed the basis of the claim, was found to be unsupported by either medical literature or studies.” Id. at 1376. B. Existence of Reasonable Basis I previously determined that Petitioner failed to provide preponderant evidence to support her allegation of a right shoulder injury caused by the flu vaccine she received on October 24, 2019. Vashro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1849V, 2023 WL 6643108 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 11, 2022) (also found at ECF No. 30). Specifically, I ruled that “the record in this case establishes that the pain Petitioner suffered post- vaccination is more likely a continuation of prior right shoulder pain.” Id. at *1. Therefore, Petitioner’s alleged SIRVA injury failed to meet the first and second criteria for a Table SIRVA, related to prior pain and pain onset. Id. at *3; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i)-(ii) (2017). Additionally, Petitioner could not prevail under a causation-in-fact claim. Vashro, 2023 WL 6643108, at *4. Nevertheless, I allowed Petitioner the opportunity to provide additional evidence, noting that the identified deficiencies could have been resolved with additional evidence – whether provided by an expert, medical literature, or the record itself. Vashro, 2023 WL 6643108, at *2. Petitioner’s inability to produce the evidence needed to satisfy the greater standard required to prevail on entitlement does not affect the feasibility of her claim. In this case, Petitioner provided evidence establishing she received the flu vaccine on October 24, 2019, as alleged (Exhibit 9), and suffered symptoms which could be attributed to a SIRVA injury.4 Although I did not find Petitioner’s attempt to distinguish her later symptoms from the bilateral arm pain and tenderness she experienced prior to vaccination5 to be sufficiently persuasive to save the claim, such evidence does help satisfy the lower reasonable basis standard. Petitioner could, in fact, have prevailed under a significant aggravation structure for the claim had she been able to produce further evidence. And the delay in pain onset Petitioner reported – approximately one-week post- vaccination6 - was not so great that it would have prevented her from establishing a casual link. 4 Nineteen days post-vaccination, Petitioner sought treatment, complaining of right arm pain. Exhibit 4 at 22-26. At her next appointment approximately one month later, Petitioner attributed her continued pain to the vaccine she received. Exhibit 3 at 19-22. 5 Petitioner maintained that her prior pain was due to a bee sting on her right hand. See Exhibit 3 at 24-25. 6 Although Petitioner’s reported pain onset varied, approximately four months post-vaccination, she stated that it occurred one-week post-vaccination. Exhibit 6 at 4. 4 Thus, the minimal evidence Petitioner provided prior to dismissal meets the level of proof required to establish reasonable basis – a standard far lower than the preponderance of evidence standard needed to meet the Vaccine Act’s requirements for compensation. Petitioner had a reasonable basis to file her petition in this case, which continued until I dismissed the claim. And there is no other basis for a denial of fees, despite the claim’s lack of success. Therefore, the only remaining question is the appropriate amount of the attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded. II. Appropriate Amount to Be Awarded A. Legal Standard 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). B. Attorney’s Fees and Costs I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. Overall, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. Counsel billed a reasonable amount of time to the matter, using hourly rates previously approved for all attorneys and paralegals performing this work. Motion at 4-9. For costs, Petitioner seeks reimbursement for only the $400.00 filing fee. Id. at 11. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. Opp. at 3, 3 n.2. Conclusion I have determined that an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs is appropriate in this case even though compensation was not awarded. Section 15(e)(1). Additionally, no reduction in the amount of attorney’s fees and costs is warranted. 5 Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs and award a total of $15,817.70 (representing $15,417.70 in fees and $400.00 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.7 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 7 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