VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02196 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02196 Petitioner: Kim Rinella Filed: 2021-09-14 Decided: 2023-10-03 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-14 Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 185000 AI-assisted case summary: Kim Rinella filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 14, 2021. She alleged that the influenza vaccine she received on October 14, 2019, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and that her injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner's GBS or any other injury. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on September 7, 2023, agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. The stipulation stated that Petitioner would receive a lump sum of $185,000 as compensation for all damages. Special Master Herbrina Sanders found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court, approving the requested amount. Judgment was entered in accordance with the terms of the stipulation. Edward Kraus represented the Petitioner, and Lynn C. Schlie represented the Respondent. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Kim Rinella alleged that the influenza vaccine received on October 14, 2019, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), lasting more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to an award of $185,000. The public decision does not describe the specific medical theory of causation, any medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. Special Master Herbrina Sanders approved the stipulation, and judgment was entered on October 3, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Edward Kraus, and Respondent's counsel was Lynn C. Schlie. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02196-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-10-03 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 9/14/2023) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (sh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 14, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KIM RINELLA, * No. 21-2196V * Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Edward Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Lynn C. Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On November 22, 2021, Kim Rinella (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (the “Vaccine Program”). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on October 14, 2019, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleged that her injury lasted for more than six months. See id. ¶ 32. On September 7, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7, ECF No. 37. Respondent “denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer GBS or Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIPD”), and further denies that the vaccine caused her to suffer any other injury or her current condition.” Id. ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. See id. ¶ 7. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. 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. Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 2 of 7 The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $185,000 in the form of a check payable to [P]etitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. ¶ 8. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/23 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02196-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-04 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/02/2022) regarding 27 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/04/24 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-2196V UNPUBLISHED KIM RINELLA, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: December 2, 2022 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); Table Claim Respondent. Dismissal. Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ORDER DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1 On November 22, 2021, Kim Rinella 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 “an injury set forth on the Vaccine Injury Table,” specifically Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on October 14, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). 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-02196-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/04/24 Page 2 of 4 On November 21, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report maintaining that this case is not appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 26. Because I find that the Petitioner’s Table claim cannot succeed, I hereby dismiss it – which leaves a possibly-meritorious causation-in-fact claim. I. Fact History The filed records establish that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on October 14, 2019 at a follow-up appointment with her primary care physician (“PCP”) after a right shoulder surgery. Ex. 3 at 46-48. She received a shingles vaccine at the same time. Id. at 48. Ten days later, Petitioner returned to her PCP complaining of flu-like symptoms, including sore throat, chills, body aches, and sinus congestion. Id. at 42. She followed up on her respiratory symptoms with her PCP again on November 4, 2019, and with an allergist on November 5, 2019. Id. at 39-40; Ex. 14 at 19. Petitioner returned to her PCP on November 25, 2019, with continued complaints of cough and congestion, which she claimed was worsening after her exposure to “red tide” in Florida. Ex. 3 at 33. On November 28, 2019 (45 days after her vaccination), Petitioner presented to the emergency department reporting a metallic taste in her mouth, blurred vision, and numbness and tingling in her arms for the previous five days. Ex. 17 at 6. She also complained of respiratory symptoms and reported her exposure to “red tide.” Id. She was later discharged. Id. at 11. Two days later, Petitioner returned to her PCP with complaints of weakness, numbness in her hands, feet, and mouth, and blurry vision in her left eye. Ex. 3 at 29. She was referred back to the emergency department. Id. At the ER, Petitioner was evaluated by a neurologist, who believed her symptoms were “most consistent with” GBS. Ex. 1 at 62. Petitioner had brain and spine MRIs and a lumbar puncture, the results of which did not change the diagnosis. Id. at 39-64. She was admitted and treated for GBS, including seven plasmapheresis treatments, five IVIG treatments, several days of intubation due to facial weakness, and insertion of a feeding tube. Id. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital to inpatient rehabilitation. Ex. 18 at 837. After her stay in inpatient rehab, Petitioner continued to have ongoing symptoms, including dysesthesia, dysphagia, and weakness in her arm and leg. Ex. 1 at 270. She received a second round of IVIG treatment. Id. An EMG on February 10, 2020 was abnormal, after which Petitioner began additional IVIG treatment, which continued through the summer of 2020. Id. at 23-29; 264. In approximately October 2020, Petitioner moved to Florida and established care with a new neurologist, Dr. Konstantin Dzamashvili, who diagnosed CIDP and ordered 2 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/04/24 Page 3 of 4 continuing bimonthly IVIG treatment. Ex. 13 at 13-16. In the summer of 2021, Petitioner returned to Illinois and to her original neurologist, Dr. Andrew Gordon, who ordered a repeat EMG. Ex. 27 at 55. The EMG revealed evidence of a “chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy.” Id. at 77. On November 30, 2021, Dr. Gordon noted that Petitioner had “atypical CIDP” in presentation, but that her pattern of continuing/worsening symptoms for more than a year “is consistent with CIDP rather than AIDP.” Id. at 25. II. Discussion To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner may demonstrate a vaccine injury in one of two ways: (1) by proving that she suffered a vaccine-specific injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) with onset within the time period required by the Table; or (2) by proving that she suffered an injury caused-in- fact by a vaccine listed on the Table. 42 U.S.C. ¶300aa-11(c)(1)(C). For both Table and causation-in-fact claims, petitioners bear a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, which requires evidence that establishes that “the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” Section 13(1)(A); Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Proof of medical certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his own assertions; rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1). To establish any Table claim, a petitioner must make a factual showing to meet each of the claim’s elements, as set forth on the Table’s “Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation” (“QAI”). Section 14(b). If successful, the petitioner need not also demonstrate causation, as it is presumed if the Table requirements for a particular claim are met. Section 14(a). To establish a GBS Table injury, a petitioner must prove that the onset of symptoms was no less than three days and no more than forty-two days after vaccine administration. 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a)(XIV)(D). Moreover, a petitioner must also demonstrate that there is no more likely cause for his symptoms. See C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(v). An ultimate diagnosis of CIDP is considered an exclusionary criterion for a flu-GBS claim. Section 14(b). In this case, the onset of Petitioner’s GBS symptoms is not a basis for dismissal. Petitioner presented to the emergency room on November 28, 2019 (a Thursday), 45 days after her vaccination, complaining of symptoms (metallic tastes, blurred vision, and numbness and tingling in her arms) since the previous Saturday, five days before. Ex. 17 at 6. In addition, Petitioner stated her in affidavit that she had felt tingling in her feet as early as October 18, 2019 (four days after her vaccination), which continued and 3 Case 1:21-vv-02196-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/04/24 Page 4 of 4 worsened. Ex. 20 at ¶7. This places onset of symptoms at the earliest four days, and at the latest 40 days post-vaccination, thus falling within the acceptable range for a Table GBS claim. 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a)(XIV)(D). However, the record preponderantly establishes that Petitioner’s proper diagnosis was CIDP, rather than GBS (or AIDP). Although Petitioner was initially treated for GBS, she continued to experience symptoms and to receive treatment, including IVIG infusions, for more than two years after her initial presentation. See Ex. 28 at 6-18 (continuing IVIG treatments into mid-2022). This is consistent with the fact that GBS is known to be acute and monophasic – rather than chronic and meandering like CIDP. Under such circumstances, CIDP best explains Petitioner’s injury, even if the treating physicians initially believed the presenting symptoms to be GBS. See Blackburn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-410V, 2015 WL 425935 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan 9, 2015). And petitioner’s treaters ultimately concluded that CIDP was the proper diagnosis. See Ex. 13 at 13; Ex. 25 at 22; Ex. 27 at 24, 55, 77. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot proceed in this action with her Table GBS claim, which is dismissed. Petitioner has, however, a potential causation-in-fact claim, as the record does raise the possibility that Petitioner could prevail on a non-Table claim if she can meet the requirements of Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Conclusion Petitioner’s Table GBS claim is dismissed for the reasons set forth above, and the case will be reassigned to a Special Master outside of the SPU. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02196-cl-extra-10734318 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-04 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267728 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: May 31, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KIM RINELLA, * No. 21-2196V * Special Master Sanders Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Edward Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner; Lynn Christina Schlie, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On November 22, 2021, Kim Rinella (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2018)2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine that she received on October 14, 2019, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On September 7, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on September 14, 2023. (ECF No. 38). On December 14, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [hereinafter “Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”], ECF No. 43. Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $47,796.89, representing $46,019.10 in 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), 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. attorneys’ fees and $1,777.79 in attorneys’ costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of her petition. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on December 15, 2023, stating that Respondent “is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, ECF No. 44. Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 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 & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347–48 (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 & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 895. 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. A. Hourly Rate The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The 2 Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules can be accessed online.3 Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Mr. Edward Kraus, $435.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $458.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $472.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $497.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Ms. Amy Kraus, $384.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $414.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $436.00 per hour for work performed in 2023. These rates are consistent with what counsel have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein. B. Reasonable Number of Hours 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 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is well-established that billing for administrative or clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See e.g., Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (stating that services that are “primarily of a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates”); see also Isom v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 94-770, 2001 WL 101459, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2001) (agreeing with Respondent that tasks such as filing and photocopying are subsumed under overhead expenses); Walters v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2022 WL 1077311, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2022) (failing to award fees for the review of CM/ECF notifications and the organization of the file); McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26 (noting that clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them). Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and upon review, the undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $46,019.10. C. Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a total of $1,777.79 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquisition of medical records, postage, the Court’s filing fee. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Tab B at 1, 23. These costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. 3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323. 3 II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2018), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and her counsel as follows: Attorneys’ Fees Requested $46,019.10 (Reduction to Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $46,019.10 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $1,777.79 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $1,777.79 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $47,796.89 Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $47,796.89, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and her attorney, Mr. Edward Kraus. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master 4 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. 4