VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02029 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02029 Petitioner: Maria Belen Banaag Filed: 2020-12-30 Decided: 2023-10-12 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-10-05 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 64136 AI-assisted case summary: Maria Belen Banaag filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2018. The petition was filed on December 30, 2020. Respondent conceded that Petitioner was entitled to compensation, agreeing that she had no prior history of shoulder issues, that her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the injection site, and that the onset of symptoms occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent also confirmed the case was timely filed, the vaccine was administered in the United States, and the injury resulted in residual effects for more than six months. The case proceeded as a Table injury claim. On October 12, 2023, the court awarded Maria Belen Banaag a total of $64,136.38, comprising $62,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,636.38 for past unreimbursable expenses, as a lump sum payment. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02029-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-06-09 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/08/2023) regarding 45 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-02029-UNJ Document 49 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2029V UNPUBLISHED MARIA BELEN BANAAG, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 8, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA) Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On December 30, 2020, Maria Belen Banaag filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On April 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an amended petition. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2018. Amended Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including Petitioner, due to her vaccine- 1 Because this unpublished 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 (2018). Case 1:20-vv-02029-UNJ Document 49 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 2 related injury. Amended Petition at ¶¶ 26-28. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On May 8, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner had 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; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours after vaccine injection; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that “the records show that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 5. Respondent also notes that Petitioner has averred that no civil actions have been filed and that she has not received or collected an award or settlement for civil damages for her vaccine related injury, and thus agrees that entitlement to compensation is appropriate. Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02029-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-08-17 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/17/2023) regarding 53 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-02029-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/23 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2029V MARIA BELEN BANAAG, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 17, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES1 On December 30, 2020, Maria Belen Banaag filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On April 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an amended petition. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2018. Amended Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On May 8, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On July 13, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“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. 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-02029-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/23 Page 2 of 4 Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $64,136.38 (representing $62,500.00 for pain and suffering, and $1,636.53 for past unreimbursable expenses) 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-02029-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/23 Page 3 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) MARIA BELEN BANAAG, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 20-2029V (ECF) v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH ) AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 30, 2020, Maria Belen Banaag (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 5, 2018. Petition at 1. On May 8, 2023, respondent conceded that entitlement to compensation was appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 44. On the same day, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) and related sequela. ECF No. 45. I. Amount of Compensation Respondent now proffers that, based on the Chief Special Master’s entitlement decision and the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded $64,136.38. The award is comprised of the following: $62,500.00 for pain and suffering, and $1,636.53 for past unreimbursed expenses. Case 1:20-vv-02029-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/23 Page 4 of 4 This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $64,136.38, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 1 Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. 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 LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ Michael J. Lang MICHAEL J. LANG Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 880-0239 Email: Michael.Lang3@usdoj.gov Dated: July 13, 2023 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02029-2 Date issued/filed: 2023-10-12 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/08/2023) regarding 59 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-02029-UNJ Document 63 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2029V MARIA BELEN BANAAG, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 8, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES1 On December 30, 2020, Maria Belen Banaag filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On April 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an amended petition. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2018. Amended Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On May 8, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On September 8, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“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. 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-02029-UNJ Document 63 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 4 Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $64,136.38 (representing $62,500.00 for pain and suffering, and $1,636.38 for past unreimbursable expenses) 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-02029-UNJ Document 63 Filed 10/12/23 Page 3 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __________________________________________ ) MARIA BELEN BANAAG, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 20-2029V (ECF) v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH ) AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 30, 2020, Maria Belen Banaag (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 5, 2018. Petition at 1. On May 8, 2023, respondent conceded that entitlement to compensation was appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 44. On the same day, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) and related sequela. ECF No. 45. I. Amount of Compensation Respondent now proffers that, based on the Chief Special Master’s entitlement decision and the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded $64,136.38. The award is comprised of the following: $62,500.00 for pain and suffering, and $1,636.38 for past unreimbursed expenses. Case 1:20-vv-02029-UNJ Document 63 Filed 10/12/23 Page 4 of 4 This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $64,136.38, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 1 Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. 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 LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ Michael J. Lang MICHAEL J. LANG Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 880-0239 Email: Michael.Lang3@usdoj.gov Dated: September 8, 2023 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02029-cl-extra-10735075 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268485 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2029V MARIA BELEN BANAAG, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 8, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On December 30, 2020, Maria Belen Banaag 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2018. Petition at 1. On September 8, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 59. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inf ormation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If , upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material f rom public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $25,383.97 (representing $24,206.20 in fees plus $1,177.77 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees filed Jan. 31, 2024, ECF No. 64. Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred $17.50 in out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 65. Respondent reacted to the motion on Jan. 31, 2024, representing that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 66. 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 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 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, 2 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2023 are reasonable and consistent with prior determinations and will therefore be adopted. However, the attorney’s fees must be reduced for redundant time billed for the review of status reports, correspondence cover letters, and other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 64 (entries dated 9/9/21; 9/2/22; 12/1/22; 11/17/23; 8/28/23; 9/11/23; 9/20/23). 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. 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). I will not award attorney’s fees for this redundant work. This results in a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded of $214.00. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. Motion at 22-32. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT in part Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $25,187.47 3 as follows: 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 f ees f or legal services rendered. Furthermore, Section 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney f rom 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). 3 • A lump sum of $25,169.97 (representing $23,992.20 in fees plus $1,177.77 in costs), in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ronald Craig Homer; and • A lump sum of $17.50, 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 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4