VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02064 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02064 Petitioner: Mariah Chatman Filed: 2020-07-19 Decided: 2024-08-21 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-10-11 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 131984 AI-assisted case summary: Mariah Chatman filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 11, 2018. While she initially presented for unrelated dental issues weeks after the vaccination, she began complaining of left shoulder pain in January 2019, consistently linking it to the October flu shot. Medical records documented ongoing pain, a partial-thickness bursal surface tear, tendinitis, impingement syndrome, and eventually, arthroscopic surgery for a torn rotator cuff. The respondent argued that the onset of pain did not occur within the 48-hour window required for a Table SIRVA claim. However, the court found sufficient evidence, including the petitioner's consistent reporting of the injury's link to the vaccine and common patterns of delayed treatment for SIRVA, to establish entitlement under the Table. The court awarded Mariah Chatman $125,000.00 for pain and suffering and $6,984.54 for unreimbursed medical expenses, totaling $131,984.54. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02064-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-21 Pages: 10 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/19/2024) regarding 50 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES of Special Master, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 1 of 10 CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2064V UNPUBLISHED MARIAH CHATMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 19, 2024 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Entitlement, HUMAN SERVICES, Damages; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA) Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Shelly Jock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 30, 2020, Mariah Chatman 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 (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Because entitlement was contested, the parties were ordered to file briefs addressing whether Petitioner has established a Table case, and setting forth their respective arguments on damages should I find entitlement in favor of Petitioner. The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on June 28, 2024 1 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-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 2 of 10 For the reasons described below, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation, and I award $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $6,984.54 for unreimbursed medical expenses. I. Medical Records Ms. Chatman received a flu vaccine on October 11, 2018, at Clarendon McLeod Hospital, where she worked as a volunteer. Ex. 2. Approximately three weeks later, she was seen by her primary care provider (“PCP”) regarding a tooth problem. There is no mention of shoulder pain at that time. Ex. 3 at 8. Petitioner saw her PCP again on January 11, 2019, complaining of shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 7. She stated that she received a flu vaccine in October and had experienced ongoing left shoulder pain since then. Id. On March 25, 2019, Petitioner again complained of shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 6.3 A Decadron injection was administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder. Id. Thereafter, Petitioner attended nineteen physical therapy sessions between March 29 and June 20, 2019. Ex. 4 at 11-44. At the initial evaluation, Petitioner reported that she got “the flu shot in lateral/posterior arm (L) in Oct. 2018” and the “[p]ain never went away….” Id. at 42. An MRI on June 7, 2019 showed a partial-thickness bursal surface tear of her left shoulder. Ex. 5 at 1. By June 20, 2019, Petitioner was discharged from physical therapy having met her goals on June 20, 2019, but she still reported slight pain with movement and daily living activities. Ex. 4 at 11. Petitioner was again seen for shoulder pain on August 20, 2019, stating that she had pain “[s]ince October”, and linking her pain to the October flu vaccination. Ex. 3 at 2. She was diagnosed with left shoulder bicipital tendinitis and referred to an orthopedist. Id. Petitioner also sent a letter to the hospital administrator on September 6, 2019, reporting that she was injured on October 11, 2018 following a flu vaccine. Ex. 6 at 1-2. Further, she stated that her shoulder started hurting “[w]hen the Registered Nurse administered the shot” and “it has never stopped.” Id. at 1. On September 11, 2019, Petitioner saw orthopedist Dr. Wagner for left arm pain after a flu vaccination the “previous October”. Ex. 7 at 9-10. She was assessed with tendinitis and given a steroid injection. Id. Petitioner returned to Dr. Wagner on October 14, 2019, stating that the steroid injection had helped but her pain returned. Id. at 8. She 3 The record notes Petitioner complained of right shoulder pain; however it is evident that Petitioner’s left shoulder was examined and treated. Ex. 3 at 6. 2 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 3 of 10 was assessed with a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon, advised to take anti- inflammatories three times a day and to follow-up with her primary care doctor. Id. Petitioner saw her PCP on November 7, 2019, reporting continued shoulder pain. Ex. 8 at 6. She was referred to physical therapy, and attended sixteen sessions between November 19, 2019, and February 10, 2020. Ex. 9 at 10-60. Later, between May 29, 2020 and October 5, 2020, Petitioner was seen for shoulder pain on four occasions and received multiple injections, including three Decadron injections. Ex. 8 at 2-5. Petitioner saw Dr. Art Jordan, an orthopedist, on November 20, 2020 for a second opinion regarding left shoulder pain. Ex. 13 at 21. She reported that her pain had persisted for two years and attributed it to “a time where she had a vaccination given in her arm.” Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with a tear of the left supraspinatus tendon and impingement syndrome and administered a steroid injection. Between December 16, 2020 and February 12, 2021, Petitioner attended an additional 12 physical therapy sessions. Ex. 14. On April 9, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Jordan for shoulder pain. Ex. 13 at 16-17. Given she had exhausted conservative treatment, she was referred to an orthopedic surgeon. Petitioner saw Dr. Patrick Denton on May 5, 2021, for shoulder pain that began after receiving a flu vaccine in October of 2018. Ex. 13 at 13-15. Dr. Denton diagnosed Petitioner with impingement syndrome and an incomplete rotator cuff tear. Thereafter, she underwent left shoulder arthroscopic surgery on October 5, 2021. Ex. 15 at 73-74. The post-operative diagnoses included left shoulder impingement, degenerative AC joint with “inferior osteophyte”, grade three synovitis, and degenerative type II Slap tear. Id. at 73. She attended twelve additional physical therapy sessions between October 27, 2021, and January 11, 2022. Ex. 21 at 21-63. On July 20, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Denton for a follow-up. Ex. 23 at 18-19. She continued to complain of left shoulder pain, however she had full range of motion. Dr. Denton stated that her impingement syndrome may be impacted by bone spurs and obesity. Id. Another steroid injection was administered. The last record was from October 24, 2022, wherein Petitioner complained of occasional pain and “electricity-like” feelings in her arm. Ex. 24 at 9-11. II. Affidavit Evidence Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of her petition describing her course of treatment and how her injury impacted her life. Ex. 1. Petitioner also stated that she had 3 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 4 of 10 an appointment with her physician on November 1, 2018, for a tooth problem. Id. at 2. At that time, Petitioner stated that she mentioned her shoulder pain but was told “it could take months to heal.” Id. III. Parties’ Arguments Petitioner argues that she is entitled to compensation because she meets requirements for a SIRVA as described in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement and Damages (“Mot.”), ECF No. 42, at 15-21. Respondent argues that Petitioner has not met the Table requirements for a SIRVA, and has failed to establish onset of her injury was within 48 hours of vaccination Act. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 43, at 3-6. IV. Legal Standard Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A). In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or by medical opinion. Id. In particular, a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria (i.e. a Table injury), in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. If a petitioner establishes a Table injury the burden shifts to respondent to establish a more likely alternative cause. Section 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1)(C)(i), 14(a). If a petitioner cannot establish a Table injury, or she may pursue causation-in-fact under the legal standard set forth in Althen v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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 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: 4 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 5 of 10 (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). In addition to causation, a petitioner must also meet the requirements establishing that the vaccine received is “covered” by the Program, the duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement.4 With regard to severity, a petitioner must show that she suffered the residual effects or complications of her injury or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine. § 11(c)(1)(D)(i); see Song v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65-66 (1994), aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that a petitioner must demonstrate the six-month severity requirement by a preponderance of the evidence). Finding that petitioner has met the severity requirement cannot be based on petitioner's word alone, though a special master need not base their finding solely on medical records. Section 13(a)(1); see Colon v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 156 Fed. Cl. 534, 541 (2021). Severity must be established regardless of whether the claim arises under the Table or is a causation-in-fact claim. A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. 4 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 her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). 5 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 6 of 10 1. No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury Would Explain Petitioner’s Symptoms The first 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). Respondent has not contested that Petitioner meets this criterion, and I find that she has demonstrated a lack of history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her symptoms. 2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of her Vaccination The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on January 11, 2019, and noted that she received a flu vaccine in October and had ongoing pain since then. Ex. 3 at 7. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to link her shoulder pain temporally to the flu vaccine. See Ex.4 at 42 (record from March 29, 2019, stating that Petitioner’s pain “never went away” following her flu vaccine in October of 2018); Ex. 6 at 1-2 (letter to a hospital administrator from September 6, 2019, stating that she was injured in October 11, 2018 following a flu vaccine); Ex. 3 at 2 (record from August 20, 2019, stating that she had pain “[s]ince October” and linking it to her flu vaccination). Respondent argues that Petitioner identified no contemporaneous records falling within the 48-hour post-vaccination period and did not report shoulder pain until January 11, 2019 (100 days after vaccination). Opp. at 3. Further, Respondent notes that Petitioner saw her PCP within weeks of her vaccination but failed to report shoulder pain. Opp. at 3. However, that appointment was for a tooth problem, and it is not unreasonable that either Petitioner did not mention her shoulder pain, or the treater failed to record it in the medical record. See Ex. 1 at 2 (Petitioner’s affidavit stating that she mentioned her shoulder pain to her PCP on November 1, 2018 during an appointment related to tooth care). Even so, a finding of proper onset can be made based on such a record. Program petitioners are not required to seek medical care within 48 hours of vaccination in order to prove Table onset. Additionally, and as noted above, Petitioner consistently linked her shoulder pain to the September vaccination. And it is common for SIRVA petitioners to delay seeking treatment, thinking the injury will resolve on its own, especially since patients are often told by medical providers at the time of vaccination to expect some soreness and pain for a period of time after. 6 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 7 of 10 Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination. 3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim. 4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality 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 there is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists. 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). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements. The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on October 11, 2018, in the United States. Ex. 2; 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 at 4; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). 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. V. Damages Petitioner is seeking $130,000.00 for pain and suffering, plus $6,984.54 for medical expenses. Mot. at 40. Respondent argues that $100,000.00 is an appropriate amount for pain and suffering but does not dispute the $6,984.54 for medical expenses. Opp. at 8. After listening to the arguments of both sides, I orally announced my ruling on damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 7 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 8 of 10 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the June 28, 2024 hearing. An official recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. In another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standard to be considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Winkle v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 2022) to the instant ruling and decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my decision awarding damages herein. VI. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all times Ms. Chatman was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact the awareness of her injury. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole, including the medical records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties in written documents, and the arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing. Petitioner cites to a number of damages decisions involving SIRVA injuries that awarded between $110,000.00 to $125,000.00 for pain and suffering, including two that involved a delay in seeking treatment.5 Mot. at 31-36. Petitioner notes that Ms. Chatman suffered a moderate to severe SIRVA over approximately four years, and her treatment involved multiple cortisone and Decadron injections, an MRI, arthroscopic surgery, and sixty physical therapy sessions. Id. 36-37. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s delay in seeking treatment and multiple gaps should reduce the award in this case. Opp. at 8-11. In support, he cites to two cases that involved initial delays of two to five months before petitioner sought treatment. awarding under $100,000.00. Gray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1708, 2022 WL 6957013 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 12, 2022) (awarding $110,000 for pain and suffering after the petitioner delayed 52 days in seeking treatment); Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-279, 2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021) (awarding $97,500.00 for pain and suffering). 5 Vaccaro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1883V, 2022 WL 662550, at *3 (Fed. Cl., 2022) (awarding $110,000 in pain and suffering); Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1384V, 2022 WL 3012509, at *4 (Fed. Cl., 2022) (awarding $125,000 in pain and suffering). 8 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 9 of 10 The record in this case best supports the conclusion that Ms. Chatman suffered a moderate SIRVA for approximately four years. There was a significant delay in seeking treatment, but she ultimately treated for an extended period. Additionally, Petitioner’s treatment was extensive, consisting of seven injections, sixty physical therapy sessions, an MRI, and arthroscopic surgery. However, her pain during physical therapy was often mild to moderate, reported as three to four out of ten during 2019 and one to four out of ten during 2020. Respondent’s proposed award of $100,000.00 does not give sufficient credence to the seriousness of Petitioner’s injury and the cases he cites are outliers in the context of SIRVA damages. And a case like Shelton is an outlier – there, the petitioner waited five months before seeking treatment, a lengthy delay that reasonably impacted the pain and suffering award. Shelton, 2021 WL 2550093 at *5, *8. Here, Petitioner’s citation to Smith is the closest comparable decision, as it balances the severity of the SIRVA against delay in treatment. The Smith petitioner reported pain 42 days after vaccination, and ultimately underwent surgery. However, he reported lingering effects of his injury five years post vaccination. Additionally, the course of treatment was not as extensive as here, consisting of one cortisone injection, twenty- eight physical therapy sessions in addition to surgery. While Smith involved less treatment, Ms. Chatman had numerous gaps in treatment and reported only mild-to- moderate pain throughout 2019 and 2020. Balancing the severity of Petitioner’s SIRVA injury, the course of treatment, and based on the record as a whole, I find that $125,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case. Conclusion For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record as a whole, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $131,984.54 (representing $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $6,984.54 for unreimbursed medical expenses) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.6 6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review. 9 Case 1:20-vv-02064-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/21/24 Page 10 of 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 10 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-02064-cl-extra-10808267 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-26 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10341679 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2064V MARIAH CHATMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: January 22, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On December 30, 2020, Mariah Chatman 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 (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). On July 19, 2024, I issued a ruling finding Petitioner entitled to compensation and decision awarding damages following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 50. 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 $57,022.96 (representing $54,137.40 for fees and $2,885.56 for costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs filed Oct. 15, 2024, ECF No. 56. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 56-4. Respondent reacted to the motion on October 16, 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, 3 n.2, ECF No. 57. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set forth below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section 15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours 2 that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. However, a few of the tasks performed by Ms. Grigorian and Ms. Pop are more properly billed using a paralegal rate.3 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99- 382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $412.40.4 Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to briefing entitlement and damages to be excessive – although not egregiously so. See Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement and Damages, filed June 21, 2023, ECF No. 42; Petitioner’s Reply to Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Entitlement & Damages, filed Aug. 29, 2023, ECF No. 44. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 21.7 hours drafting the entitlement and damages briefing and 10.7 hours drafting a reply, totaling 32.45 hours. ECF No. 56-2 at 16-17. My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated with that task in full. ECF No. 56-2 at 12-13. Nor am I counting time spent communicating 3 These entries, drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, notice of filings, statement of completion, joint notice not to seek review, and election to accept judgment are dated as follows: 1/5/21 (two entries), 11/1/21, 12/29/21, 1/13/23, 6/20/23, 6/21/23, 7/22/24, and 7/25/24 (one-half time). ECF No. 56-2 at 8-9,15, 17, 20. 4 This amount consists of ($295 - $172) x 1.2 hrs.+ ($385 - $177) x 0.2 hrs. + ($410 - $186) x 0.2 hrs.+ ($385 - $186) x 0.5 hrs. + ($460 - $197) x 0.3 hrs. = $412.40. 5 This total is calculated as follows: 32.4 hours billed on 6/12/23, 6/13/23, 6/14/23, 6/15/23 (two entries), 6/16/23, 6/18/23, 6/19/23, 6/20/23, 6/21/23, 8/21/23, 8/24/23, 8/25/23, 8/28/23 (two entries), 8/29/23, by Alexandria Pop at a rate of $385. 3 with Petitioner and preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or signed declarations, which is also being awarded in full. See, e.g., id. at 17 (entry dated 6/20/22). It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing, even the matter of both entitlement and damages 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),6 in which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.7 The circumstances of this case did not warrant devoting so much time to briefing. The primary areas of dispute involved pain onset and the appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) & (c)(10)(ii) (required pain onset timing). And the parties proposed pain and suffering award varied by only $30,000.00, with Petitioner proposing an award of $130,000.00, and 6 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). 7 See, e.g., Schwalm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0066V (Dec. 2, 2024) (12.2 and 6.9 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Stanton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0360V (Nov. 25, 2024) (15.9 and 4.5 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Hirsch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1110V (Nov. 25, 2024) (16.0 and 4.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Templin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1446V (Nov. 25, 2024) (12.0 and 0.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively) Kleinschmidt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0680V (Apr. 9, 2024) (13.9 and 4.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Amor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0978V (Apr. 10, 2024) (11.9 and 2.7 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); McGraw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0072V (Apr. 1, 2024) (17.4 and 9.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Wilson-Blount v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1400V (Oct. 25, 2023) (14.2 and 7.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Bidlack v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0093V (Oct. 25, 2023) (9.4 and 6.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1543V (Aug. 17, 2023) (17.8 and 9.7 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Piccolotti v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0135V (June 8, 2023) (11.6 and 3.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Merson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0589V (May 18, 2023) (9.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief – although some time was doubtlessly saved by my March 9, 2020 factual ruling finding an appropriate pain onset); C.H. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0249V (May 16, 2023) (12.9 and 6.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively). These decisions can (or will) 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 Dec. 6, 2024). 4 Respondent countering with $100,000.00. See Ruling on Entitlement and Damages Decision at 7, ECF No. 50. Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate. ECF No. 39. 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 damages briefing (a total of 32.4 hours, or $12,474.00) by twenty percent.8 Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)9 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 $2,494.80.10 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $2,885.56 in overall costs and has provided receipts for all expenses. ECF No. 56-3. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. ECF No. 51. 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 $54,115.76 (representing $51,230.20 for fees and $2,885.56 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 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.11 8 Because 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). 9 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). 10 This amount is calculated as follows: (32.4 hrs. x $385 x .20) = $2,494.80. 11 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6