VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01989 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01989 Petitioner: Karyn Mason-Chavez Filed: 2021-10-08 Decided: 2023-11-20 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2020-09-30 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 72000 AI-assisted case summary: Karyn Mason-Chavez filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 8, 2021, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) after receiving a Tdap vaccine in her left arm on September 30, 2020. She stated the vaccine was administered in the United States, the residual effects lasted over six months, and she had no prior history of shoulder issues. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that her pain occurred within 48 hours post-vaccination, was limited to the injection site, and no other condition explained the pain. A ruling on entitlement was issued on June 20, 2023. Subsequently, on October 17, 2023, the respondent proffered an award of $72,000.00 for pain and suffering, which the petitioner accepted. The Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding this lump sum payment on November 20, 2023. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01989-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-20 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/20/2023) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01989-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1989V KARYN MASON-CHAVEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 20, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 8, 2021, Karyn Mason-Chavez 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered in her left arm on September 30, 2020. Petition at 1-2; Ex. 1 at 202. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, the residual effects of her injuries continued for more than six months, and she has never received any compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 12, 14, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 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 (2018). Case 1:21-vv-01989-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 2 On June 15, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her post-vaccination symptoms; her pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain. Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that the records demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. 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-01989-1 Date issued/filed: 2023-11-20 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/18/2023) regarding 33 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01989-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1989V KARYN MASON-CHAVEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 18, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 8, 2021, Karyn Mason-Chavez 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered in her left arm on September 30, 2020. Petition at 1-2; Ex. 1 at 202. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, the residual effects of her injuries continued for more than six months, and she has never received any compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 12, 14, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Case 1:21-vv-01989-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 4 On June 20, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On October 17, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $72,000.00. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $72,000.00 (in pain and suffering) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01989-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/20/23 Page 3 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) KARYN MASON-CHAVEZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 21-1989V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 8, 2021, Karyn Mason-Chavez (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a Tetanus-Diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine she received on September 30, 2018. Petition at 1. On June 15, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on June 20, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF Nos. 22, 24. I. Items of Compensation Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $72,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 1 Case 1:21-vv-01989-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/20/23 Page 4 of 4 II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $72,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Karyn Mason-Chavez. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ AUSTIN J. EGAN Austin J. Egan Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 451-7479 Austin.J.Egan@usdoj.gov Date: October 17, 2023 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01989-cl-extra-10736978 Date issued/filed: 2023-11-20 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270388 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1989V KARYN MASON-CHAVEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 18, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 8, 2021, Karyn Mason-Chavez 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered in her left arm on September 30, 2020. Petition at 1-2; Ex. 1 at 202. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, the residual effects of her injuries continued for more than six months, and she has never received any compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 12, 14, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). On June 20, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On October 17, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $72,000.00. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $72,000.00 (in pain and suffering) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) KARYN MASON-CHAVEZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 21-1989V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 8, 2021, Karyn Mason-Chavez (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a Tetanus-Diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine she received on September 30, 2018. Petition at 1. On June 15, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on June 20, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF Nos. 22, 24. I. Items of Compensation Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $72,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 1 II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $72,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Karyn Mason-Chavez. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ AUSTIN J. EGAN Austin J. Egan Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 451-7479 Austin.J.Egan@usdoj.gov Date: October 17, 2023 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01989-cl-extra-10736036 Date issued/filed: 2024-03-04 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269446 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1989V KARYN MASON-CHAVEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: January 30, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On October 8, 2021, Karyn Mason-Chavez 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis vaccine administered in her left arm on September 30, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 18, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 33. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $31,434.26 (representing $29,853.00 in fees plus $1,581.26 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed Oct. 24, 2023, ECF No. 37. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 34. Respondent reacted to the motion on Nov. 14, 2023, reporting that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 38. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set forth below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section 15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES A. Hourly Rates Petitioner requests hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals performing work in this matter as follows: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 David J. Carney, Esq. X $350 $375 $400 $425 Paralegals $145 $145 $145 $145 $175 Evan R. Baker, Law Clerk X X $175 $185 X The hourly rates requested for Mr. Carney and paralegals for all time billed in the 2019-23 period are reasonable and consistent with prior determinations and shall therefore be awarded herein. The 2021 and 2022 hourly rates requested for Ms. Baker, however, requires adjustment. Categorized as a law clerk, Evan Baker was a law student who began working at the firm during the summer of 2021. ECF No. 37 at 9. She has remained at the firm, expecting to take the bar exam in July 2023, after earning her degree. Id. However, the hourly rate for her 2021 and 2022 work exceeds the student hourly rate paid in other cases - $150 and $165, for years 2021 and 2022, respectively. E.g., Wnuk v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0679V, 2023 WL 4195520, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 26, 2023). Accordingly, I shall instead compensate Evan Baker’s 2021 and 2022 work at the rates of $150 and $165 per hour. This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $782.00.3 Additionally, a few of the tasks performed by Mr. Carney are more properly billed using a paralegal rate.4 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at 3 This amount consists of (($175 - $150) x 18.4 hrs.) + (($185 - $165) x 16.1 hrs.) = $25 x 18.4 hrs. + $20 x 16.1 hrs. = $782.00. 4 These entries describing the preparation of a notice of filing, the bates stamping medical records, and filing both documents are dated as follows:10/20/2021 and 9/20/2023. ECF No. 37 at 16, 20. 3 which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $284.00.5 B. Billed Hours Regarding the number of hours billed, I find the amount to be reasonable. Thus, no further reduction in attorney’s fees is needed. ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $1,581.26 in overall costs. ECF No. 37 at 26. I find the majority of these costs reasonable with the exception of $87.45 in costs incurred for “[s]canning charges for medical records, letters, intake materials, client documents for case processing.” Id. at 33. Such overhead expenses are inherent in operating a law firm and are thus not compensable. Accordingly, the attorney’s costs are reduced by $87.45. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $30,280.81 (representing $28,787.00 in fees plus $1,493.81 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, David J. Carney. 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.6 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 This amount consists of ($375 - $145) x .8 hrs. + ($425 - $175) x .4 hrs. = $284.00. 6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4