VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025 Petitioner: Stacy Danforth Filed: 2021-10-15 Decided: 2024-06-25 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2018-10-20 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 105608 AI-assisted case summary: Stacy Danforth filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of her Tdap vaccination on October 20, 2018. The respondent conceded that petitioner was entitled to compensation, noting that she had no prior history of shoulder issues, the pain occurred within 48 hours of the vaccination, and the pain was limited to the injection shoulder. The respondent also agreed that petitioner suffered residual effects for more than six months and met all legal prerequisites for compensation. A ruling on entitlement was issued on February 28, 2024, finding her entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. Subsequently, on May 30, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer on damages, recommending an award of $100,000.00 for pain and suffering and $5,608.37 for past unreimbursable expenses, which petitioner agreed to. The Special Master awarded a total lump sum of $105,608.37. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-03-25 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 2/28/2024) regarding 36 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02025-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2025V Filed: February 28, 2024 STACY DANFORTH, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 15, 2021, petitioner 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 her October 20, 2018 tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1-2. On February 28, 2024, 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. 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-02025-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/25/24 Page 2 of 2 Specifically, respondent states that: [P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; 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 6. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months,” and “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6- 7. In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025-cl-extra-10735851 Date issued/filed: 2024-03-25 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269261 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2025V Filed: February 28, 2024 STACY DANFORTH, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 15, 2021, petitioner 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 her October 20, 2018 tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1-2. On February 28, 2024, 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. 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). Specifically, respondent states that: [P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; 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 6. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months,” and “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6- 7. In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-25 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/30/2024) regarding 42 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02025-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2025V Filed: May 30, 2024 STACY DANFORTH, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 15, 2021, Stacy Danforth 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administrations (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on October 20, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On February 28, 2024, respondent filed his Rule 4 Report, indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation, and that same day, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. (ECF Nos. 35- 36.) On May 30, 2024, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $100,000.00 in pain and suffering and $5,608.37 in past reimbursable expenses. (ECF No. 41.) In the Proffer, respondent represents 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. 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. Case 1:21-vv-02025-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 5 Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump sum payment of $105,608.37 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a). 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-02025-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS STACY DANFORTH, Petitioner, No. 21-2025V v. Special Master Horner ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON DAMAGES On October 15, 2021, Stacy Danforth (“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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on October 20, 2018. Petition at 1; Amended Petition at 1. On February 28, 2024, 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 the same day, the Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF Nos. 35-36. I. Item of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $100,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses 1 Case 1:21-vv-02025-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 5 related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $5,608.37. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 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 Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $105,608.37 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Stacy Danforth: $105,608.37 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 JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 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 Case 1:21-vv-02025-UNJ Document 46 Filed 06/25/24 Page 5 of 5 /s/ Mary Novakovic Mary Novakovic Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 616-2879 Date: May 30, 2024 Email: Mary.E.Novakovic@usdoj.gov 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025-cl-extra-10734938 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-25 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268348 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2025V Filed: May 30, 2024 STACY DANFORTH, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 15, 2021, Stacy Danforth 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administrations (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on October 20, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On February 28, 2024, respondent filed his Rule 4 Report, indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation, and that same day, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. (ECF Nos. 35- 36.) On May 30, 2024, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $100,000.00 in pain and suffering and $5,608.37 in past reimbursable expenses. (ECF No. 41.) In the Proffer, respondent represents 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. 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. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump sum payment of $105,608.37 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a). 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS STACY DANFORTH, Petitioner, v. No. 21-2025V Special Master Horner SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON DAMAGES On October 15, 2021, Stacy Danforth (“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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on October 20, 2018. Petition at 1; Amended Petition at 1. On February 28, 2024, 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 the same day, the Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF Nos. 35-36. I. Item of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $100,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses 1 related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $5,608.37. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 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 Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $105,608.37 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Stacy Danforth: $105,608.37 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 JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 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 /s/ Mary Novakovic Mary Novakovic Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 616-2879 Date: May 30, 2024 Email: Mary.E.Novakovic@usdoj.gov 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 5: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02025-cl-extra-11126638 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-25 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10660051 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2025V Filed: May 8, 2025 STACY DANFORTH, Special Master Horner Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On October 15, 2021, Stacy Danforth 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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administrations (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on October 20, 2018. Petition at 1. On May 30, 2024, respondent filed a proffer, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF Nos. 41-42.) On November 5, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 47.) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,520.00 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $588.85. Fees App. at 1-2. Pursuant to General 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). Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of this litigation. (ECF No. 48). Thus, the total amount requested is $18,108.85. On November 12, 2024, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 49.) 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 did not file a reply thereafter. 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 reduction, special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioners’ fee application. 2 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 her attorneys at Conway Homer: for Mr. Ronald Homer, $475.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $500.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $525.00 per hour for work performed in 2024; for Ms. Christina Ciampolillo, $380.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $425.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $470.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Mr. Joseph Pepper, $415.00 per hour for work performed on 2022, $285.00 per hour for work performed on 2019, $330.00 per hour for work performed on 2020 and 2021, $385.00 per hour for work performed on 2022, and $485.00 per hour for work performed in 2024; for Ms. Meredith Daniels, $485.00 per hour for work performed in 2024; for Mr. Nathaniel Enos, $280.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $320.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $360.00 per hour for work performed in 2024; and for Mr. Patrick Kelly, $305.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $345.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. For paralegals, petitioner requests the following rates: $155.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $170.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $185.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, AND $195.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. These rates are consistent with what counsel have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and I find them to be reasonable herein. See Vanore v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-870V, 2025 WL 407022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 3, 2025). 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 3 objectionable, nor has respondent identified any as such. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of $17,520.00. 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 $588.85 in attorneys’ costs, including the acquisition of medical records, the Court’s filing fee, postage, and copies. Fees App. Ex. A at 24-25. The costs requested by Conway Homer in this matter appear reasonable. Accordingly, petitioner is 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 fees and costs is reasonable. I find it reasonable to compensate petitioner and his counsel as follows: a lump sum in the amount of $18,108.85, 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 4