VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133 Petitioner: Adonnis Conner Filed: 2022-08-30 Decided: 2023-12-04 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-16 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: Adonnis Conner, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on October 16, 2019. He alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of this vaccination. Mr. Conner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on August 30, 2022, and submitted medical records to support his claim. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on November 30, 2023, conceding that Mr. Conner is entitled to compensation. The respondent concluded that the alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that Mr. Conner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence in the record, the Special Master found that Mr. Conner is entitled to compensation. A separate order for damages will be issued. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-28 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/4/2023) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (ms) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/28/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 4, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADONNIS CONNER, * * Petitioner, * No. 22-1133V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel, and Safran, Wauwatosa, WI, for petitioner. Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On August 30, 2022, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (flu) vaccine administered on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1); Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 1 (ECF No. 30). Petitioner filed also filed medical records to support his claim. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 1-34 (ECF No. 1, 22, 24). On November 30, 2023, respondent filed the Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Resp. Rept. at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “DICP has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/28/23 Page 2 of 2 defined by the Vaccine Injury Table” and that “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5. In light of respondent’s position and the evidence in the record, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation. A separate damages order will be issued. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133-cl-extra-10736650 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-28 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 4, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADONNIS CONNER, * * Petitioner, * No. 22-1133V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel, and Safran, Wauwatosa, WI, for petitioner. Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On August 30, 2022, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (flu) vaccine administered on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1); Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) at 1 (ECF No. 30). Petitioner filed also filed medical records to support his claim. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 1-34 (ECF No. 1, 22, 24). On November 30, 2023, respondent filed the Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Resp. Rept. at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “DICP has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. defined by the Vaccine Injury Table” and that “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5. In light of respondent’s position and the evidence in the record, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation. A separate damages order will be issued. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-23 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/26/2024) regarding 40 DECISION Proffer Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (ms) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/23/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: February 26, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADONNIS CONNER, * * Petitioner, * No. 22-1133V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jubaile Abila, Groth Law Firm, S.C., Brookfield, WI, for petitioner. Tyler King, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES1 On August 30, 2022, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 16, 2019 caused him to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, conceding entitlement to compensation on November 30, 2023. Resp’t Rept. at 1 (ECF No. 29). The undersigned issued a Ruling on Entitlement on December 4, 2023, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 31). On February 26, 2024, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, which indicates petitioner’s agreement to compensation on the terms set forth therein. Proffer at 2 (ECF No. 39). The Proffer is attached hereto as Appendix A. 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/23/24 Page 2 of 5 Consistent with the terms in the attached Proffer, I hereby award the following in compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C § 300aa-15(a): 1) A lump sum payment of $60,000 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 2 Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/23/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ADONNIS CONNER, Petitioner, v. No. 22-1133V Special Master Gowen SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1 I. Procedural History On August 30, 2022, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation (“petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended. He alleges that he sustained a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, within the Table time period following administration of an influenza vaccine he received on October 16, 2019. See Petition at 1. On November 30, 2023, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 30. On December 4, 2024, the Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 31. 1 This proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after the damages decision is issued. Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/23/24 Page 4 of 5 II. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. III. 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 following2: a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. IV. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Adonnis Conner: $60,000.00 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 ALEXIS B. BABCOCK Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 2 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 pain and suffering. Case 1:22-vv-01133-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/23/24 Page 5 of 5 /s/ Tyler C. King TYLER C. KING 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) 305-0730 Tyler.King@usdoj.gov Dated: February 26, 2024 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133-cl-extra-10734197 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-23 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267607 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: February 26, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * ** * ADONNIS CONNER, * * Petitioner, * No. 22-1133V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jubaile Abila, Groth Law Firm, S.C., Brookfield, WI, for petitioner. Tyler King, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON DAMAGES 1 On August 30, 2022, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 16, 2019 caused him to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, conceding entitlement to compensation on November 30, 2023. Resp’t Rept. at 1 (ECF No. 29). The undersigned issued a Ruling on Entitlement on December 4, 2023, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 31). On February 26, 2024, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, which indicates petitioner’s agreement to compensation on the terms set forth therein. Proffer at 2 (ECF No. 39). The Proffer is attached hereto as Appendix A. 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. Consistent with the terms in the attached Proffer, I hereby award the following in compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C § 300aa-15(a): 1) A lump sum payment of $60,000 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ADONNIS CONNER, Petitioner, v. No. 22-1133V Special Master Gowen SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1 I. Procedural History On August 30, 2022, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation (“petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended. He alleges that he sustained a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, within the Table time period following administration of an influenza vaccine he received on October 16, 2019. See Petition at 1. On November 30, 2023, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 30. On December 4, 2024, the Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 31. 1 This proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after the damages decision is issued. II. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. III. 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 following2: a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. IV. Summary of Recommended Payment Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Adonnis Conner: $60,000.00 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 ALEXIS B. BABCOCK Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 2 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 pain and suffering. /s/ Tyler C. King TYLER C. KING 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) 305-0730 Tyler.King@usdoj.gov Dated: February 26, 2024 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 5: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01133-cl-extra-11127503 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-26 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10660916 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: February 25, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADONNIS CONNER, * * Petitioner, * No. 22-1133V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jubaile Abila, Groth Law Firm, S.C., Brookfield, WI, for petitioner. Tyler King, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1 On August 23, 2024, Adonnis Conner (“petitioner”), filed a motion for Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 44). For the reasons discussed below, I hereby GRANT petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and award a total of $25,551.74. Id. I. Procedural History On August 30, 2022, petitioner filed petitioner filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 See Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as a result of the influenza vaccine he received on October 16, 2019. Petition at 1.; Resp’t Rept. at 1 (ECF No. 30). Respondent 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. conceded entitlement in the case, and a Ruling on Entitlement was issued on December 4, 2023. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 31). Damages was resolved via proffer, and a Decision on Damages was entered on February 26, 2024. Petitioner filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees on August 23, 2024 with the supporting documentation. Respondent filed his response on August 27, 2024 stating that “respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting that “the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp. to Fees App. at 2, 4. (ECF No. 45). The matter is now ripe for adjudication. II. Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs a. Legal Standard The Vaccine Act provides that reasonable attorney’s fees and costs “shall be awarded” for a petition that results in compensation. §15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Even when compensation is not awarded, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “may” be awarded “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for which the claim was brought.” § 15(e)(1). The Federal Circuit has reasoned that in formulating this standard, Congress intended “to ensure that vaccine injury claimants have readily available a competent bar to prosecute their claims.” Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 675 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In the instant case, entitlement was conceded, and petitioner’s claim resulted in compensation. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. III. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs a. Legal Standard As stated above, the Vaccine Act only authorizes “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs. The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349. Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys’ fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at 1348. Although not explicitly stated in the statute, the requirement that only reasonable amounts be awarded applies to costs as well as to fees. See Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Special masters have “wide discretion in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.” Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). They may look to their experience and judgment to reduce the number of hours billed to a level 2 they find reasonable for the work performed. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A line-by-line evaluation of the billing records is not required. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (1991), aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). The petitioner “bea[rs] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484. Adequate proof of the claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is filed. Id. at 484, n. 1. Counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hour that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). b. Hourly Rate The interim fee decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys' fees based upon an individual’s experience. McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Court has since updated the McCulloch rates. The Attorneys Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules for 2018-2023 can be accessed online. Petitioner requests a total of $25,434.30 in attorneys’ fees for work done by his attorney Jubaile Abila and for work done by attorneys Jerome Konkel, Ryan Truesdale, and Jonathan Groth. Fees App. at ¶¶ 3-6. Petitioner requests the following rates for the work of his counsel: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Jubaile Abila $289 $305 Jerome Konkel $380 $455 $490 $525 $555 Ryan Truesdale $325 $350 $370 Jonathan Groth $475 These rates are consistent with the Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules and are consistent with what has been awarded to each attorney in each respective year. Petitioner also requests fees for work performed by paralegal, Jennifer Varga in the following amounts: $112 per hour for work performed in 2020; $170 per hour for work performed in 2023; and $182 per hour for work performed in 2024. The requested rates are consistent with the Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules and are consistent with what has been awarded previously. Thus, I find all requested rates to be reasonable for the work performed in this case. c. Hours Expended A line-by-line evaluation of the fee application is not required and will not be performed. Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484. Rather, I may rely on my experience to evaluate the reasonableness of hours expended. Id. Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce 3 hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests …. [v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. After review of the submitted billing statement, I find that the overall hours spent on this matter are reasonable. The entries are reasonable and accurately describe the work performed and the length of time it took to perform each task. See generally Int. Mot. Ex. B. Respondent has also not identified any particular entries as objectionable. See Resp’t Resp. to Int. Mot. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to $25,434.30 in attorneys’ fees. d. Attorneys’ Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992). Petitioner requests a total of $117.44 in costs for the acquisition of medical records. Int. Mot. at 1. Such costs are typical in the Vaccine program and are reasonable. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to recover the full amount of his requested costs in the amount of $117.44. IV. Conclusion In accordance with the above, petitioner’s motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, I award the following: 1) A lump sum in the amount of $25,551.74 representing reimbursement for 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 Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance herewith. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen 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