VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01884 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01884 Petitioner: Bi Ying Gao Filed: 2021-09-22 Decided: 2023-09-22 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-09-28 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 162613 AI-assisted case summary: Bi Ying Gao filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 22, 2021, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from an influenza vaccine administered on September 28, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded entitlement to compensation on January 26, 2023, agreeing that Ms. Gao met the criteria for a Table injury, satisfied the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA, filed her case timely, received the vaccine in the United States, and met the statutory severity requirement by suffering residual effects for more than six months. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding Ms. Gao entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to agree on the quantum of damages, leading to a separate decision on compensation. Following a briefing schedule and an expedited hearing on July 14, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages on September 22, 2023. The decision noted that Ms. Gao's petition was supported by medical records and declarations, and she later filed updated medical records and expense documentation. She initially conveyed a demand in October 2022 and waived a potential lost wages claim in January 2023. The Special Master considered factors such as awareness of injury, severity, and duration of suffering, reviewing Ms. Gao's medical records, declarations, filings, and arguments from both parties. The decision highlighted Ms. Gao's prompt medical attention within two weeks of vaccination, including a first steroid injection, followed by three additional steroid injections, pain medications, an MRI, and 32 physical therapy sessions leading to arthroscopic surgery 13 months post-vaccination. Post-surgery, she experienced residual pain and impingement signs, necessitating an additional 32 physical therapy sessions, a second MRI, and two more steroid injections, with the last occurring 21 months post-vaccination. The Special Master found that Ms. Gao's case reflected more severe pain and suffering than cited respondent cases, citing earlier medical treatment, a greater number of PT sessions, and more cortisone injections. Ms. Gao demanded $180,000.00 for pain and suffering, while the respondent suggested $105,000.00. The Special Master awarded $155,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, finding it a fair and appropriate amount based on the specific circumstances, including prompt medical attention, arthroscopic surgery, numerous injections and PT sessions, and the orthopedist's acknowledgment of ongoing pain and limited range of motion. For actual unreimbursable expenses, Ms. Gao claimed $9,226.07, later adjusted to $8,372.52 after removing duplicative expenses, and ultimately requested $7,613.30 for expenses she had paid or for which balances were owed. The Special Master awarded $7,613.30 for actual unreimbursable expenses, noting that proof of payment for some balances was not provided but that the award should not be delayed. The total award was $162,613.30, comprising $155,000.00 for pain and suffering and $7,613.30 for unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner's counsel was Jimmy A. Zgheib of Zgheib Sayad, P.C., and respondent's counsel was Andrew Henning of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued both the Ruling on Entitlement and the Decision Awarding Damages. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Bi Ying Gao received an influenza vaccine on September 28, 2020, and subsequently developed a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury met the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table for SIRVA and satisfied the statutory severity requirement. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The award was based on the severity and duration of the injury, including prompt medical attention, multiple steroid injections, physical therapy, and arthroscopic surgery. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $155,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $7,613.30 for actual unreimbursable expenses, totaling $162,613.30. Petitioner was represented by Jimmy A. Zgheib, and Respondent was represented by Andrew Henning. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01884-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-02-27 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/26/2023) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1884V UNPUBLISHED BI YING GAO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 26, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA) Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On September 22, 2021, Bi Ying Gao 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on September 28, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On January 26, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) 1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 2 for SIRVA. Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner timely filed her case, that she received the flu vaccination in the United States, and that she satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01884-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-09-22 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/18/2023) regarding 57 DECISION of Special Master, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 7 CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1884V BI YING GAO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 18, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 22, 2021, Bi Ying Gao 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on September 28, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters, and although entitlement has been found in Petitioner’s favor, the parties could not agree on the appropriate quantum of damages. 1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 7 For the reasons described below, and after the parties were afforded the opportunity to present argument at an SPU Motions Day hearing, I find that Petitioner is entitled to $162,613.30 (representing $155,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $7,613.30 for actual unreimbursed expenses). I. Relevant Procedural History Ms. Gao’s Petition was supported by the required medical records and declaration, and she later filed updated medical records and expense documentation. In October 2022, she conveyed a demand to Respondent. Status Report, ECF No. 30.3 In January 2023, Respondent conceded entitlement of the Table SIRVA claim, and a Ruling on Entitlement was issued. ECF Nos. 35, 36. But the parties swiftly reached a damages impasse, necessitating a briefing schedule entered on March 1, 2023. ECF Nos. 39, 41. Petitioner filed her Damages Brief on March 5, 2023, ECF No. 42, followed by Respondent’s Response on April 28, 2023, ECF No. 47. On May 1, 2023, Petitioner filed medical and billing records from consultation with a pain management specialist, Ex. 21, ECF No. 48, alongside her Reply Brief, ECF No. 49. Petitioner opposed Respondent’s request to file a sur-reply concerning the additional exhibit and requested an expedited hearing. ECF Nos. 50, 51. I denied any further briefing in favor of hearing any additional argument at the expedited hearing, which took place on July 14, 2023. ECF Nos. 52, 54, 55; Minute Entry dated July 17, 2023.4 During the hearing, I orally ruled on the amount to be awarded for actual pain and suffering. As explained also explained during the hearing, Petitioner was granted an additional opportunity to identify existing record documentation that she had actually paid certain claimed expenses before I would set a precise figure to be awarded on that damages component. See also Informal Communication and Scheduling Order entered on July 17, 2023 (Non-PDF); Petitioner’s Status Report filed July 17, 2023, ECF No. 56. The matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Authority Under the Vaccine Act, the petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 1996). 3 While Petitioner was still evaluating the potential for a lost wages claim in October 2022, she waived that component in January 2023. ECF Nos. 30, 35. 4 As of the date of this Decision, the transcript of the July 16, 2023, Motions Day hearing has not been filed, but my oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 3 of 7 Compensation shall include “[f]or actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with my predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.5 Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims). Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by a decision of the Court of Federal Claims several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013). Graves instead emphasized the importance of assessing pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence specific to the injured individual, prior pain and suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this approach, the statutory cap merely cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not 5 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims, were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master. 3 Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 4 of 7 controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain and suffering awards. I have periodically provided (in other published decisions) statistical data on pain and suffering for SIRVA claims resolved in SPU. See, e.g., McKenna v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0030V, 2023 WL 5045121, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 7, 2023). As noted in McKenna, as of July 1, 2023, in 173 SPU SIRVA cases that required reasoned damages determinations, compensation for past pain and suffering ranged from $40,000.00 to $215,000.00. Id. at *3. Cases with higher pain and suffering awards involved prompt medical attention; high subjective pain ratings; moderate to severe limitations in range of motion; significant findings on MRI; surgery or significant conservative treatment; and evidence of permanent injury. Id. at *3. III. Pain and Suffering In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. In determining appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, I have carefully reviewed and taken into account the complete record in this case, including, but not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records, signed declarations,6 filings, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents and at the expedited hearing held on July 14, 2023. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non- SPU SIRVA cases, and relied upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, my determination is ultimately based upon the specific circumstances of this case. Pursuant to my oral ruling on July 14, 2023 (which is fully adopted herein), I find that $155,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s pain and suffering. When making this determination, I recognize that Petitioner’s initial pain and suffering was severe – as evidenced by her first medical attention and first steroid injection within two weeks post-vaccination. She received three additional steroid injections, as well as various pain medications, an MRI, and 32 physical therapy (“PT”) sessions leading up to her arthroscopic surgery 13 months post-vaccination. After surgery, Petitioner’s condition improved, but she experienced residual pain particularly at night and continued impingement signs. Accordingly, she underwent an additional 32 6 Rather than affidavits, the statements provided by Petitioner are declarations signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. 4 Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 5 of 7 post-surgery PT sessions (across several facilities), a second MRI, and two additional steroid injections – the last of which was 21 months post-vaccination. Compared to Respondent’s cited cases, Hunt and Shelton (Response at 7-8),7 this case reflects more severe pain and suffering – which is evidenced particularly by the lack of any comparable treatment gaps. While Respondent suggested that this case featured a 2.5-month treatment gap (just prior to the retention of counsel), that overlooks the ongoing PT course. This case also involved an earlier presentation for medical treatment, a greater number of PT sessions, and more cortisone injections than what was seen in Hunt and Shelton (which I have often noted are sui generis instances of a sub-six figure award in SIRVA cases featuring surgery). Thus, Respondent’s proffer of $105,000.00 is inadequate. In contrast, Petitioner demands $180,000.00. Brief at 14.8 With regard to her cited cases, S.C. involved a somewhat similar treatment course – with a greater number of PT sessions (95 total, compared to 64 total in this case), but a lengthy treatment gap (20 months), which does not allow for easy comparison. Hooper and Reed included more compelling evidence of impacts on the petitioners’ professional and personal obligations. Here, the most compelling facts are Petitioner’s prompt medical attention; the arthroscopic surgery; the number of steroid injections and PT sessions; and the orthopedist’s acknowledgment of ongoing pain and somewhat limited range of motion 21 months post-vaccination. Less influential are Petitioner’s subsequent consultations with rehabilitation and pain management specialists, who relied primarily on Petitioner’s history and did not institute any further treatment. Overall, the record reflects actual pain and suffering warranting an award of $155,000.00. IV. Actual Unreimbursable Expenses Compensation shall also include “actual unreimbursable expenses” which: “(i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the petitioner seeks compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury, and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation, developmental evaluation, 7 Citing Hunt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2022) (awarding $95,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0279V, 2021 WL 255093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021) ($97,500.00). 8 Citing Hooper v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0012V, 2019 WL 1561519 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019) (awarding $185,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); S.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0341V, 2021 WL 2949763 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. $160,000.00); Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019) ($160,000.00). 5 Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 6 of 7 special education, vocational training and placement, case management services, counseling, emotional or behavioral therapy, residential and custodial care and service expenses, special equipment, related travel expenses, and facilities determined to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner claimed $9,226.07 in medical expenses, Brief at 16-17 (citing to supporting documentation within Exs. 17-20); see also Reply at 7-9 (citing Ex. 21 for one additional medical consultation, with an expense of $211.90). Respondent opposed all expenses, arguing that they were unsubstantiated. Response at n. 1; see also Joint Status Report, ECF No. 55 (confirming the parties’ positions in advance of the hearing). At the hearing, however, Respondent allowed at most that the magnitude of the pain and suffering figure could be scaled upward to cover the claimed medical expenses. But the Act clearly separates out these damages components as independently compensable if incurred – and I have therefore evaluated them separately. Petitioner’s briefing includes a helpful table of each claimed medical expense’s amount, date of the encounter, medical provider, and citation to supporting documentation. But as the parties were informed at the hearing, it was (at least at that time) unclear that certain expenses (arising between April 2021 – December 2022) were ever paid. After the hearing, Petitioner removed two duplicative expenses (totaling $721.88) from her request. Status Report, ECF No. 56. She otherwise requested “reimbursement of all expenses incurred for treatment of her vaccine injury, including those balances which she still owes and has not yet paid,” for a total of $8,372.52. Id. But she also confirmed, “if the Court does not agree that [each] balance is reimbursable,” the total minus those balances comes to $7,613.30. ECF No. 56-1 at 1. While recognizing that Petitioner has documented that certain care expenses were not paid by insurance, without proof of their payment it is speculative to deem them “incurred.” This case’s damages have been submitted for expedited resolution, and an award should not be delayed further to allow for compilation and review of additional proof of payment (or argument that the balances should nonetheless be paid). And otherwise Petitioner has been afforded substantial opportunities to establish damages. Thus, Petitioner will be awarded $7,613.30 for actual unreimbursable expenses. Conclusion Based on the record as a whole and the parties’ arguments, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $162,613.30 (representing $155,000.00 for actual pain and 6 Case 1:21-vv-01884-UNJ Document 61 Filed 09/22/23 Page 7 of 7 suffering,9 plus $7,613.30 for actual unreimbursable expenses). This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.10 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 9 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96- 0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). 10 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01884-cl-extra-10736878 Date issued/filed: 2023-11-30 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270288 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1884V BI YING GAO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: October 25, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On September 22, 2021, Bi Ying Gao 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on September 28, 2020. Petition at 1. On August 18, 2023, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner, following briefing by the parties and participation in a Motions Day Hearing. ECF No. 57. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inf ormation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If , upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material f rom public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $45,931.34 (representing $43,973.50 for fees and $1,957.84 for costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed Aug. 21, 2023, ECF No. 58. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 58-3. Respondent reacted to the motion on September 5, 2023, indicating 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. 59. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. I note this case required additional briefing regarding the issue of damages and participation in an expedited Motions Day. See Status Report, filed Feb. 27, 2023, ECF No. 39 (reporting an impasse in damages discussions); Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages, filed Mar. 5, 2023, ECF No. 42; Petitioner’s Reply Brief, filed May 1, 2023, ECF No. 49; Hearing Minute Entry, dated July 17, 2023 (regarding the July 14, 2023 hearing). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 16.5 hours drafting the brief in support of damages; and 9.4 hours drafting the reply brief, totaling 25.9 hours. ECF No. 58-1 at 16, 18. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and I will award the attorney’s fees requested. (And all time billed to the matter was also reasonably incurred). Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable. 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 $45,931.34 (representing $43,973.50 for fees and $1,957.84 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Jimmy A. Zgheib. 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. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2 Chief Special Master 3