VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01318 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01318 Petitioner: R.W. Filed: 2021-05-05 Decided: 2023-08-08 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-11-05 Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 125000 AI-assisted case summary: On May 5, 2021, Lindsay Walker, as next friend of R.W., a minor child, filed a petition for vaccine compensation. Petitioner alleged that R.W. suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving influenza, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B vaccines on November 5, 2019, and that R.W. experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that R.W. sustained a GBS Table injury or that the vaccines caused R.W.'s condition. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case. The stipulation noted that R.W. received influenza and Hepatitis A vaccines on November 5, 2019, and also received Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines on that date, all of which are on the Vaccine Injury Table. The parties stipulated to an award of $125,000.00 for all damages, payable to R.W.'s estate. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation and awarded the compensation on August 8, 2023. Petitioner counsel was Bradley S. Freedberg, and respondent counsel was Nina Ren. The public decision does not describe the onset, specific symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the medical expert witnesses involved in this case. Theory of causation field: Petitioner alleged that R.W. suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving influenza, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B vaccines on November 5, 2019, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied a Table injury or causation. The parties stipulated to a settlement. The stipulation noted that R.W. received influenza, Hepatitis A, Measles-Mumps-Rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines on November 5, 2019, all of which are on the Vaccine Injury Table. The case was settled for a lump sum of $125,000.00, payable to R.W.'s estate, representing compensation for all damages. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation on August 8, 2023. Petitioner counsel was Bradley S. Freedberg, and respondent counsel was Nina Ren. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of causation, expert testimony, or the medical evidence presented. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01318-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-08-08 Pages: 8 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION, (Originally filed: 07/12/2023) regarding 39 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (saj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1318V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LINDSAY WALKER, * Chief Special Master Corcoran next friend of R.W., a minor, * * Petitioner, * Filed: July 12, 2023 * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bradley S. Freedberg, Bradley S. Freedberg, P.C., Denver, CO, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On May 5, 2021, Lindsay Walker, on behalf of R.W., a minor child, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that R.W. suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of R.W.’s November 5, 2019, receipt of the influenza (“flu”), Hepatitis A (“Hep. A”), and Hepatitis B (“Hep. B”) vaccines. Moreover, Petitioner alleged that R.W. experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that R.W. sustained a GBS Table injury, or that R.W.’s alleged GBS or its residual effects were caused-in-fact by the flu, Hep A, or Hep B vaccines, or any other vaccine; 1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public in its present form. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 2 of 8 and denies that the vaccines caused R.W. any other injury or R.W.' s current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on July 6, 2023) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards: • A lump sum of $125,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner as guardian/conservator of R.W.’s estate. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Act. I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 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. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 3 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) LINDSAY WALKER, next friend of R.W., a ) mmor, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 21-1318V ) Chief Special Master Corcoran v. ) ECF ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Lindsay Walker ("petitioner"), on behalf of R.W., a minor child, filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to R. W. 's receipt of the influenza ("flu"), Hepatitis A ("Hep A"), and Hepatitis B ("Hep B") vaccines, which vaccines are contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). 2. R.W. received the flu and Hep A vaccines on or about November 5, 2019.1 3. The vaccinations were administered within the United States. 1 The petition, as amended, alleges that R.W. received Hepatitis A and Band influenza vaccinations on November 5, 2019, but the vaccination records indicate that R.W. did not receive a Hepatitis B vaccination on that date, but did receive influenza, Hepatitis A, Measles-Mumps Rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines, all of which are contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 4 of 8 4. Petitioner alleges that R.W. suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome ("GBS") as a result of receiving the flu vaccine within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner also alleges that R.W. suffered GBS that was caused-in-fact by the Hep A and Hep B vaccines. Petitioner further alleges that R. W. experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on R.W.'s behalf as a result ofR.W.'s condition. 6. Respondent denies that R.W. sustained a GBS Table injury or that R.W. 's alleged GBS or its residual effects were caused-in-fact by the flu, Hep A, or Hep B vaccines, or any other vaccine; and denies that the vaccines caused R. W. any other injury or R. W .' s current condition. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation, and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum of $125,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of R.W.'s estate. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before 2 Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 5 of 8 the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. 10. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursable expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for R.W. 's benefit as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(g) and (h). 13. Petitioner represents that petitioner presently is, or within 90 days of the date of judgment will become, duly authorized to serve as guardian/conservator of R. W. 's estate under the laws of the State of Colorado. No payments pursuant to this Stipulation shall be made until petitioner provides the Secretary with documentation establishing her appointment as guardian/conservator of R. W.' s estate. If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/conservator of R.W. 's estate at the time a payment pursuant to this Stipulation is to be made, any such payment shall be paid to the party or parties appointed by 3 Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 6 of 8 a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate ofR.W. upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary. 14. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and as legal representative ofR.W., on behalf of petitioner, R.W., and R. W. 's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of R.W. resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the vaccinations administered on or about November 5, 2019, as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about May 5, 2021, and in an amended petition filed on or about September 24, 2021, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 21-1318V. 15. lfR.W. should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties. 16. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 4 Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 7 of 8 17. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 18. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu, Hep A, or Hep B vaccines or any other vaccine caused R.W. 's alleged injury, or any other injury or R.W. 's current condition, or that R.W. suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. 19. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns as legal representatives of R.W. END OF STIPULATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 Case 1:21-vv-01318-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/08/23 Page 8 of 8 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01318-cl-extra-10736655 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-27 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270065 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1318V ************************* * LINDSAY WALKER, * Chief Special Master Corcoran next friend of R.W., a minor, * * Petitioner, * Filed: December 8, 2023 * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES * * Respondent. * * ************************* Bradley S. Freedberg, Bradley S. Freedberg, P.C., Denver, CO, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION GRANTING IN PART SUPPLEMENTAL FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On May 5, 2021, Lindsay Walker, on behalf of R.W., a minor child, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleged that R.W. suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of R.W.’s November 5, 2019, receipt of several covered vaccines. The parties stipulated to a sum to be paid Petitioner in settlement of the claim, and I issued a decision awarding Petitioner compensation. See Decision, dated July 12, 2023 (ECF No. 39). 1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public in its present form. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). Petitioner filed a motion for a final award of attorney’s fees and costs – in two parts. The first part was filed in the summer. See Motion, dated June 29, 2023 (ECF No. 35). In it, Petitioner requested an award of $62,719.90 in attorney’s fees and costs ($62,291.00 in fees plus $428.90 in costs) for the work of attorneys Bradley Freedberg and Gurney Pearsall III, from February 2021 to the date of filing. ECF No. 35 at 2. Respondent reacted to the first part of the fees request on June 30, 2023. See Response, June 3, 2023 (ECF No. 36). Respondent was satisfied that the statutory requirements for an attorney’s fees and costs award were met in this case, but deferred the calculation of the amount to be awarded to my discretion Response. at 2–3. The requested amount was issued to Petitioner after judgment entered on the initial fees decision. (ECF No. 43). Petitioner thereafter requested that the fees judgment be reopened to allow for recovery of supplemental costs for establishing a guardianship ($11,262.50) that were erroneously not requested in the previously-granted fees request. Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, filed October 18, 2023 (ECF NO. 48) (the “Supplemental Costs Motion”). Respondent did not oppose Petitioner’s request, and deferred to my judgment. Response to Supplemental Costs Motion, filed November 2, 2023 (ECF No. 50) (“Response”). I acted favorably on the motion, vacating the fees judgment and reissuing the total sum in fees and costs requested. See Order Reopening Judgment, dated November 17, 2023 (ECF No. 51); Second Fees Decision, dated November 22, 2023 (ECF No. 52). However, the parties informed me afterward that the sum to be awarded subject to the reopened judgment had already been received by Petitioner – meaning my amended decision awarded more than Petitioner was requesting. I therefore withdrew that second fees decision (see Order, dated December 5, 2023 (ECF No. 53), and now reissue a final, single fees decision that (hopefully) resolves in total all fees and costs in this matter. ANALYSIS I. Attorney’s Fees Because Petitioner’s claim was successful, the Act entitles her to an award of attorney’s fees. Section 15(e). Determining the appropriate amount of the fees award is a two-part process. The first part involves application of the lodestar method - “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). The second part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down to take relevant factors into consideration. Id. at 1348. This standard for calculating a fee award is considered applicable in most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 2 461 U.S. 424, 429–37 (1983). An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the proper hourly rate to be awarded on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C., for Vaccine Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there is a substantial difference in rates (the so-called “Davis exception”). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges for attorneys with different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). Petitioner requests the following rates for her attorneys, based on the years work was performed: 2021 2022 2023 Mr. Bradley $455 $480 $515 Freedberg Mr. Gurney $275 $300 $325 Pearsall III ECF No. 35 at 7–16. Both attorneys representing Petitioner in this case practice in Denver, Colorado, which is deemed a forum-equivalent region. Accordingly, they are entitled to the rates established in McCulloch. See Ward v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1621V, 2021 WL 3408511, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2021). However, some of the rates requested for Mr. Pearsall are inconsistent with what has previously been awarded for his time, in accordance with the Office of Special Masters’ fee schedule. 3 Comeau v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-198V, 2021 WL 3053038, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2021) (awarding $270 in 2021). I thus find cause to slightly reduce the amount requested specific to Mr. Pearsall by $51.25, 4 although I accept the requested rates for his time for the two following years. This leaves a total of $62,239.75 in fees 3 OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Scheduling, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914 (last visited July 12, 2023). 4 Originally, Mr. Pearsall billed $275 per hour for 10.25 hours of work performed in 2021, which equated to $2,818.75. However, at the correct rate of $270 per hour for 10.25 hours, the new total for 2021 is $2,767.50. This leaves a difference of $51.25 to be subtracted from the fee total. 3 to be awarded (since I make no adjustment to any of the time devoted to the matter by these two attorneys – for work specific to the adjudication of this claim). II. Calculation of Primary Litigation Costs Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Presault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667, 670 (2002); Perreira v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992). Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at *16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). When petitioners fail to substantiate a cost item, such as by not providing appropriate documentation to explain the basis for a particular cost, special masters have refrained from paying the cost at issue. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005). Petitioner seeks $428.90 in outstanding costs, including the cost of medical record retrieval and the filing fee. ECF No. 35 at 6, 17–19. All requested costs in this matter appear reasonable, and they shall also be awarded in full without reduction. III. Additional Costs for Guardianship Issue Petitioner filed the Supplemental Costs Motion last month, when her counsel discovered that certain costs had not been requested in the initial fees motion. These costs are all associated with the establishment of a guardianship under Delaware law (the state in which Petitioner and R.W. now live), and include attorney’s fees incurred by Mr. Freedberg, Mr. Pearsall, and the local counsel they obtained to assist with the guardianship issue. Mr. Freedberg requests an additional $7,725 fee, reflecting 15 additional hours at his rate of $515 per hour. Mr. Pearsall requests $1,787.50, for 5.5 hours of additional work at his rate of $325 per hour. Finally, counsel requests $1,750 to cover the retainer for the local Delaware attorney. Therefore, counsel requests a total of $11,262.50 in additional fees. Motion, filed October 18, 2023 at 3. Establishing a guardianship has been determined a legitimate cost for a Vaccine Act claim, and therefore is reimbursable. Barrett v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-389V, 2014 WL 2505689 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2014). However, review of the invoices submitted with the Supplemental Costs Motion reveals that not all of the hours for which reimbursement is now sought were in fact related to the guardianship issue. For example, there are several time entries setting forth time billed by Mr. Freedberg before he became aware of the guardianship issue in his calculation of fees, based on his representation that he became aware of this issue in mid-September. Motion at 1. Therefore, I will not award fees for those entries before mid-September. Petitioner will only be reimbursed for 11 hours of time incurred by Mr. Freedberg after this date, at his rate of $515 per hour for 2023 work, for a total of $5,665. 4 Mr. Pearsall’s time entries also include work done before the guardianship was discovered. Id. at 2. Therefore, he will only be awarded fees for the work performed on and after September 19, 2023. This will amount to 4.25 hours at this rate of $325 per hour, for a total of $1,381.25. Counsel also requests the fees for local Delaware counsel, which amount to a flat fee of $1,750. According to this attorney’s retainer agreement, this amount will cover his handling of the matter with one court appearance. Motion, Exhibit A, filed October 18, 2023 (ECF No. 48-1). This request is reasonable and will be granted in full. Therefore, $8,769.25 in fees will be added to the other sums set forth above, for the time spent addressing the guardianship issue in this case. IV. Final Fees and Costs to be Awarded As noted above, Petitioner has already received the sum of $62, 668.65 in connection with the now-reopened judgment from July 2023. Therefore, only an additional $8,769.25 in fees and costs will be awarded for the time spent addressing the guardianship issue in this case. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining the propriety of a final fees award, I GRANT IN PART Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and award a total of $8,769.25 in the form of a check made jointly payable to Petitioner and her attorney, Mr. Bradley Freedberg. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices renouncing their right to seek review. 5 6