VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01100 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01100 Petitioner: Italo A. Miceli Filed: 2021-03-23 Decided: 2025-02-20 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-10-25 Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 22000 AI-assisted case summary: Italo A. Miceli filed a petition on March 23, 2021, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered in his left deltoid on October 25, 2018, caused left shoulder pain. Before the vaccination, he had injured the same shoulder in 2015 while working as a police officer, with MRI findings of partial tearing and AC joint arthrosis. The Special Master first addressed whether the Table claim could proceed. Mr. Miceli reported severe pain immediately after vaccination and inability to move his arm the next morning. He sought urgent care seven weeks later with persistent left shoulder pain and limited motion since the flu shot, then treated with medication, orthopedics, cortisone injection, and physical therapy. Chief Special Master Corcoran found that the residual-effects requirement was met, but dismissed the Table SIRVA claim because the prior left shoulder injury prevented petitioner from meeting the Table requirement of no prior shoulder dysfunction. The parties later resolved the remaining claim by stipulation. Respondent denied Table SIRVA, denied causation, and denied sequelae. Special Master Daniel T. Horner adopted the stipulation on February 20, 2025, awarding Mr. Miceli $22,000.00 as a lump sum. A later fee decision concerned attorney fees and costs only. Mr. Miceli was represented by Caitlyn Shea Malcynsky of Walsh Woodard LLC. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine in left deltoid on October 25, 2018 allegedly causing left shoulder injury/SIRVA. COMPENSATED by stipulation after Table claim dismissed. Key facts: prior 2015 left shoulder work injury with partial rotator-cuff tearing and AC arthrosis; post-vaccine pain reported immediately/next morning; urgent care seven weeks later; treatment included medication, orthopedics, cortisone injection, and PT. Chief SM Corcoran found six-month severity met but Table SIRVA unavailable because of prior shoulder dysfunction. Remaining claim resolved by stipulation; respondent denied causation. Petition filed March 23, 2021; damages decision by SM Daniel T. Horner February 20, 2025. Award $22,000 lump sum. Attorney: Caitlyn Shea Malcynsky, Walsh Woodard LLC. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01100-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-10 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/17/2024) regarding 30 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. Modified on 9/18/2024 to correct the docket text. (fm). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1100V ITALO A. MICELI, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 17, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Caitlyn Shea Malcynsky, Walsh Woodard LLC, West Hartford, CT, for Petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1 On March 23, 2021, Italo Miceli filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza ("flu”) vaccine he received on October 25, 2018. Petition at ¶ 1, 16. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although I find that Petitioner has more likely than not suffered the residual effects of his alleged vaccine-related injury for more than six months, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA 1 Because this Fact 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 Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 7 claim must still be dismissed because the evidentiary record does not support the conclusion that he had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to his vaccination. This leaves a possibly-meritorious causation-in-fact claim to be adjudicated, however. I. Relevant Procedural History On April 7, 2023, just over two years after the case was initiated, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner had not established entitlement to compensation. ECF No. 25. In particular, Respondent argued that Petitioner cannot establish that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months as required by the Vaccine Act. Rule 4(c) Report at 6. Respondent also argued that Petitioner’s claim for a Table SIRVA must fail because he “had a prior injury to his left shoulder which could explain his alleged symptoms.” Rule 4(c) Report at 7-8. I ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether Petitioner has satisfied the severity requirement. Petitioner filed his brief (“Br.”) on June 29, 2023. ECF No. 28. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on July 31, 2023. ECF No. 29. The matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Factual History In August 2015 (just over three years prior to the vaccination at issue), Petitioner injured his left shoulder while on duty as a police officer. Ex. 3 at 3; Ex. 7 at 4. An MRI performed on September 21, 2015, revealed partial tearing of the infraspinatus and subscapularis and moderate AC joint space arthrosis. Ex. 4 at 5; Ex. 3 at 7. Mr. Miceli was treated by an orthopedist, received a cortisone injection, and had physical therapy treatment. Ex. 3 at 7-8. Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid on October 25, 2018. Ex. 2 at 3. Petitioner stated that he “experienced severe pain” immediately after his vaccination, which was “placed in a higher area of [his] arm than usual.” Petitioner’s Affidavit at ¶7-8. He recalled that when he woke the morning after his vaccination, he “could not move [his] left arm at all.” Id. at ¶8. On December 14, 2018 (seven weeks after vaccination), Petitioner had an urgent care appointment where he reported “persistent left shoulder pain and limitation in movement since [his] flu shot” six weeks ago. Ex. 8 at 10. He stated that he “had a lot more pain and swelling immediately following the immunization for about a week.” Id. He was assessed with rotator cuff tendinitis, prescribed meloxicam, and instructed to follow up if his symptoms did not improve. Id. at 11. Petitioner then saw his primary care physician (“PCP”) on January 2, 2019 for an annual exam. Ex. 8 at 13. He reported 2 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 7 continued left shoulder pain for which he had an appointment scheduled with his orthopedist. Id. at 13, 16. On January 14, 2019, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist who had previously treated his left shoulder injury in 2015-16. Ex. 10 at 8. He reported having a flu shot that was “placed more superiorly than he thought would be typical” with “immediate sudden pain” and that he was “unable to use his arm the next day.” Id. On exam, he had full active range of motion, mild pain with testing, and negative impingement signs. Id. at 9. He was assessed with a “new shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”).” Id. The doctor did not believe Petitioner’s more recent symptoms were related to his prior shoulder injury, and speculated that Mr. Miceli would return to his baseline with supportive care. Id. On February 14, 2019, Petitioner was determined to have a 4% permanent loss of use of his left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 5. In an affidavit filed with his brief, Petitioner stated that “though he did have some limitations and occasional pain, [he] was not suffering major symptoms in [his] left shoulder in the two and a half years between completing [his] treatment and the time of [his] vaccination.” Petitioner’s Affidavit at ¶6. Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on March 7, 2019, reporting continued “dull, constant pain.” Ex. 10 at 10. On exam, he had full range of motion, positive impingement signs, and some pain with testing. Id. He was assessed with a “left shoulder bursal-sided rotator cuff tear with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.” Id. He received a cortisone injection and was referred to physical therapy. Id. at 10-11. Petitioner had an initial physical therapy evaluation on March 13, 2019. Ex. 11 at 7. He reported that he developed left shoulder pain “after having flu vaccination in Oct. 2018.” Id. The therapist’s plan of care consisted of two sessions per week for 4-6 weeks. Id. at 9. He attended a total of eight physical therapy sessions through April 11, 2019. Id. at 10-13. At his final visit, Petitioner reported “resolving” left shoulder pain and his therapist noted that he was “slowly making gains.” Id. at 13. He was not discharged from treatment. Id. On April 18, 2019, five months and twenty-four days after his vaccination, Petitioner had his final appointment with his orthopedist. Ex. 10 at 12. Petitioner reported “doing much better” after the cortisone injection and physical therapy. Id. He reported only occasional soreness and his exam was normal. Id. He was instructed to engage in “activity as tolerated” and to follow up as needed. Id. Petitioner stated that at the time of his last treatment, he continued to experience pain and limitations in range of motion, but believed that he his “health insurance would not approve additional physical therapy.” Plaintiff’s Affidavit at ¶19. 3 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 7 III. Applicable Legal Standards The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine Act § 11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. § 13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014). Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03- 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to 4 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 5 of 7 document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational). IV. Findings of Fact A. Severity To satisfy the statutory severity requirement, Petitioner must demonstrate that his symptoms more likely than not continued until at least April 25, 2019 - six months after his October 25, 2018 vaccination. The record is clear that Petitioner consistently sought treatment after his vaccination through at least April 18, 2019 – a period of five months and twenty-four days (and thus less than a week short of the six-month severity “cut off.”) Respondent argues that Petitioner had no symptoms at his last orthopedist appointment, received no recommendation for further treatment, and was released from care. Resp. at 4. He further argues that Petitioner has not provided evidence of ongoing symptoms beyond his own statements. Id. at 4-6. At the time of his final physical therapy treatment on April 11, 2019, however, Petitioner reported resolving left shoulder pain. Ex. 11 at 13. He had completed eight sessions, the minimum planned at the time of his evaluation. Id. at 9-13. His therapist noted that he was “slowly making gains.” Id. at 13. He was not discharged from treatment. Id. Although there is evidence that Petitioner had over time experienced significant improvement in his symptoms, there is no evidence that his symptoms were fully resolved 5 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 6 of 7 at that time. Similarly, at his last orthopedist appointment, Petitioner again reported significant improvement in his symptoms after the cortisone injection and physical therapy treatment. Ex. 10 at 12. However, he also reported “occasional soreness,” indicating that his symptoms had not permanently resolved. Id. Thus, the record allows for the conclusion that Petitioner’s condition had not resolved by the six-month onset anniversary. The records are consistent with Petitioner’s affidavit testimony that he continues to have “pain and occasional range of motion issues.” Petitioner’s Affidavit at ¶20. He further explained that his symptoms have not worsened, and are “not constant, but happen daily and increase with activity or use of the shoulder.” Id. at ¶20, 22. In addition, Petitioner has provided a credible explanation of why he did not seek additional care for his injury after April 18, 2019. Specifically, Petitioner explained that his symptoms have not worsened since that time. Id. at ¶20. He also explained that he did not seek further treatment due to his work schedule, and his belief that additional treatment would be costly. Id. at ¶22. Overall – taking into account the remedial nature of the Program – the evidence supports a finding that severity has been met. Based on the records of Petitioner’s final visits for treatment coupled with his affidavit testimony, it is more likely than not that Petitioner continued to experience symptoms for at least seven days after his last orthopedist appointment, where he reported “occasional soreness” – which is sufficient to reach the six month threshold. At worst, this case represents a “close-call,” and in “the Vaccine Program, petitioners are accorded the benefit of close calls.” Roberts v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 29, 2013). Therefore, I find that the evidence preponderates in Petitioner’s favor on this issue. B. Prior Shoulder Injury Despite my severity finding, there is a greater problem with the Table claim in this case. The medical records reveal, and Petitioner does not dispute, that Petitioner had suffered a significant left shoulder injury three years prior to his vaccination. Ex. 3 at 3; Ex. 7 at 4. Although Petitioner states that his prior injury was not causing “major symptoms” immediately prior to his October 2018 vaccination, he admits that he continued to have “some limitations and occasional pain” at that time. Petitioner’s Affidavit at ¶6. In addition, Petitioner’s MRI in 2015 revealed partial tearing of his left rotator cuff, which had not been repaired, and moderate AC joint space arthrosis. Ex. 4 at 5. To prevail on a Table SIRVA claim, Petitioner must prove that he had “no prior history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to vaccine 6 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/10/24 Page 7 of 7 administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Because the medical records reveal that Petitioner suffered a prior left shoulder injury that could explain his post-vaccination pain and limited range of motion, he cannot establish the first QAI for a Table SIRVA. Rather, the claim can only proceed as a causation-in-fact claim. Conclusion Petitioner has established that he suffered the residual effects of his alleged vaccine-related injury for at least six months. However, as I also find that Petitioner cannot succeed Table SIRVA claim because of his prior left shoulder injury, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is dismissed. The case will be reassigned to a Special Master outside of the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”), for adjudication as a causation-in-fact claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01100-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-03-18 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/20/2025) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1100V Filed: February 20, 2025 ITALO A. MICELI, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Caitlyn Shea Malcynsky, Walsh Woodard LLC, West Hartford, CT, for petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On March 23, 2021, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (“Vaccine Act”).2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered left shoulder pain as a result of his October 25, 2018 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed February 20, 2025, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he has experienced the residual effects of his condition for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his condition, and that his vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1, 4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner's current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on February 20, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the 1 Because this document 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 document 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 2 of 7 stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $22,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner 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 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-01100-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/18/25 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01100-cl-extra-11309925 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10842570 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1100V Filed: February 26, 2026 ITALO A. MICELI, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Caitlyn Shea Malcynsky, Walsh Woodard LLC, West Hartford, CT, for petitioner. Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On March 23, 2021, Italo A. Miceli filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered left shoulder pain as a result of his October 25, 2018 influenza vaccination. (ECF No. 1.) On February 20, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF No. 40.) On July 31, 2025, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 45) (“Fees App.”) Petitioner requests the following compensation: attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $16,402.32, representing $15,834.70 in fees and $567.62 in 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), Petitioners have 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). costs. Fees App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants he did not personally incur any costs in pursuit of this litigation. Id. at 2. On August 4, 2025, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 46.) Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 requires respondent to file a response to a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully requests that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 4. Petitioner filed a reply on August 4, 2025. (ECF No. 47.) This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. at 1347- 48. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348. It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however, should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 894-95. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id. Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte, without providing petitioners notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (Fed. Cl. 2009). When determining the relevant fee 2 reduction, special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioners’ fee application. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Instead, they may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991), rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests . . . Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. a. Hourly Rates Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for his counsel: for Mr. Gerald S. Sack: $464.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $484.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $509.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, and $525.00 per hour for work performed in 2022; and for Ms. Caitlyn S. Malcynsky, $386.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $475.00 per hour for work performed in 2024, and $511.00 per hour for work performed in 2025. Additionally, for paralegals, Petitioner requests: $156.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $163.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $172.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $177.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $186.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $197.00 per hour for work performed in 2024, and $212.00 per hour for work performed in 2025. Id. The rates for Mr. Sack and Ms. Malcynsky require an adjustment. Mr. Sack has been a licensed attorney since 1972, with a practice in civil litigation. Fees App. at 2. According to petitioner, Mr. Sack retired from the practice of law on December 31, 2022. Id. at 1. Mr. Sack was previously awarded $415.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, and $425.00 per hour for work performed in 2020. Clark v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0524V, 2020 WL 7238477, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 6, 2020). I find no cause to deviate from these rates; therefore, I reduce Mr. Sack’s rates for 2019 and 2020, respectively, to those previously awarded. Regarding the rates requested for 2021 and 2022, although Mr. Sack has extensive litigation experience, I find the requested rates slightly excessive, as Mr. Sack has limited prior experience with Vaccine Program cases. Based on Mr. Sack’s minimal experience in the Vaccine Program, I find that the following rates to be more appropriate: $475.00 per hour for time billed in 2021, and $500.00 per hour for time billed in 2022. This results in a reduction of $784.80.3 Ms. Malcynsky has been a licensed attorney since 2017. Ms. Malcynsky was previously awarded $305.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $345.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. Disantis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 22-1361V, 2025 WL 2305042, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2025). I find no cause to deviate from these rates; therefore, I reduce Ms. Malcynsky’s rates for 2023, and 2020, respectively, to those previously awarded. It appears that Ms. Malcynsky’s 2025 rate 3 This amount is calculated as follows: ($464 - $415) x 5.5 hrs. = $269.50) + ($484 - $425) x 5.2 hrs. = $306.80) + ($509 - $475) x 4.0 hrs. = $136.00) + ($525 - $500) x 2.9 hrs. = $72.50) = $784.80. 3 has not yet been established. Despite her limited experience handling Program matters, Ms. Malcynsky requests $511.00 for work performed in 2025, which falls on the highest end of the applicable experience range (which is $401-$511 for attorneys with 4-8 years of experience). Based on my experience applying the factors relevant to determining proper hourly rates for Program attorneys, I find it reasonable to award Ms. Malcynsky $405.00 per hour for work performed in 2025. This results in an additional reduction of $1,344.30.4 The requested paralegal rates from 2019-2024, are consistent with what the paralegals have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and I find them to be reasonable herein. I find that newly requested paralegal rate for 2025, is also reasonable and shall be awarded. b. Hours Expended Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Upon review, the overall number of hours billed appears to be reasonable. I have reviewed the billing entries and find that they adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. I do not find any of the entries to be objectionable, nor has respondent identified any as such. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of $13,705.60. c. Attorneys’ Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a total of $567.62 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. Ex. B. These costs are comprised of acquisition of medical records, the Court’s filing fee, and postage. Id. I find that these costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought. II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), I have reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that petitioner’s request for 4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($386 - $305) x 8.1 hrs. = $656.10) + ($475 - $345) x 3.5 hrs. = $455.00) + ($511 - $405) x 2.2 hrs. = $233.20) = $1,344.30. 4 fees and costs is reasonable. I find it reasonable to compensate petitioner and her counsel as follows: a lump sum in the amount of $14,273.22, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 5 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 5