VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01289 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01289 Petitioner: Barbara Beckmann Filed: 2022-09-14 Decided: 2024-11-04 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2021-09-04 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 115308.27 AI-assisted case summary: On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in her right shoulder on September 4, 2021 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) report, concluding that Ms. Beckmann's injury was consistent with Table SIRVA and that the legal prerequisites for compensation were met. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement on November 7, 2023. The damages decision described a concrete treatment story. Ms. Beckmann reported shoulder pain on September 29, 2021, stating that it began two hours after vaccination and reached eight to ten out of ten. X-ray showed mild degenerative changes, examination showed reduced range of motion and weakness, and she received a steroid injection. Physical therapy began on October 7, 2021. By October 15, she reported that the injection had not helped much and that therapy made the shoulder more painful. An October 20 MRI showed bursitis. On November 16, 2021, she underwent arthroscopic surgery with debridement and subacromial decompression. She then attended nineteen more therapy sessions between November 2021 and April 2022; by February 28 her pain was zero to five out of ten, and by April 5 she had full unrestricted range of motion, great strength, and no impingement signs. Ms. Beckmann sought a six-figure pain and suffering award, while respondent argued for $75,000.00 to $85,000.00. The Chief Special Master found she had suffered a moderate SIRVA for about seven months, with meaningful early pain, MRI, injection, twenty-five total therapy sessions, and surgery. On November 4, 2024, he awarded $115,308.27: $115,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $308.27 for out-of-pocket expenses. Theory of causation field: Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine right shoulder September 4, 2021; Table SIRVA with pain beginning two hours after vaccination. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded entitlement. Clinical course: Sept 29 pain 8-10/10, reduced ROM/weakness, steroid injection; PT starting Oct 7; injection little benefit; Oct 20 MRI bursitis; Nov 16 arthroscopic debridement/subacromial decompression; 25 total PT sessions; improvement to full ROM/no impingement by Apr 2022. Award Nov 4, 2024: $115,308.27 = $115,000.00 pain/suffering + $308.27 expenses. SM Corcoran. Petition filed September 14, 2022. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01289-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-08 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/07/2023) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01289-UNJ Document 22 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1289V BARBARA BECKMANN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 7, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann 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 administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 4, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and that she has not received an award or 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 1:22-vv-01289-UNJ Document 22 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 2 compensation for her injury. Petition at 1-3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On November 2, 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 has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with a SIRVA. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. 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_22-vv-01289-cl-extra-10736800 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-08 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10270210 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1289V BARBARA BECKMANN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 7, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann 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 administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 4, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and that she has not received an award or 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). compensation for her injury. Petition at 1-3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On November 2, 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 has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with a SIRVA. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01289-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-12-05 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/04/2024) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01289-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1289V UNPUBLISHED BARBARA BECKMANN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 4, 2024 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Influenza (Flu) HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although entitlement was conceded, the parties were unable to resolve damages informally, so they agreed instead to submit this dispute for resolution at an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which took place on October 25, 2024 For the reasons described below, I award $115,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $308.27 for out-of-pocket expenses. 1 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 1:22-vv-01289-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 4 I. Fact Evidence Ms. Beckmann received a flu vaccine in her right shoulder on September 4, 2021. Ex. 1 at 1. She reported shoulder pain on September 29, 2021, stating it started two hours after vaccination. Ex. 3 at 169. Her pain was reported as eight to ten out of ten. Id. An x- ray indicated mild degenerative changes, and an examination showed reduced range of motion with weakness. Id. at 3 at 169, 170. A steroid injection was also administered. Id. at 171. Petitioner attended six physical therapy sessions, starting on October 7, 2021. Ex. 3 at 12-14. Her pain was reported as zero at best, ten out of ten at worst, and currently seven out of ten. Id. at 12. On October 15, 2021, Petitioner reported that the steroid injection did not provide much benefit and physical therapy made her shoulder more painful. Id. at 188. An MRI on October 20, 2021, revealed that Petitioner had bursitis. Ex. 3 at 129. On November 16, 2021, she underwent arthroscopic surgery that included debridement and subacromial decompression. Id. at 36. Between November 29, 2021 and April 27, 2022, Petitioner attended nineteen physical therapy sessions. Her pain improved, and by February 28, 2022 it was reported as zero to five out of ten. Ex. 3 at 81. By April 5, 2022, Petitioner had a full and unrestricted range of motion, great strength, and no impingement signs. II. Damages Petitioner argues that she is entitled to $135,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $308.27 for out-of-pocket expenses. Petitioner’s Damages Brief (“Pet. Br.”), ECF No. 30, at 1, 9-12. Respondent counters that a lower award of between $75,000.00 and $85,000.00 is more appropriate in this case. Respondent’s Damages Brief (“Opp.”), ECF No. 31, at 9-10. He does not contest the out-of-pocket expenses. Opp. at 1 n.1. After listening to the arguments of both sides, I orally announced my ruling on damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the October 25, 2024 hearing. An official recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. In a recent decision I discussed at length the legal standards to be considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein 2 Case 1:22-vv-01289-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 4 my prior discussion in Sections V - VII of Crawford v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0544V, 2024 WL 1045147, at *20-22 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2024) to the instant Ruling and Decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner's medical history and experience that further informed my resolution of this matter. III. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all times Ms. Beckmann was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact the awareness of her injury. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole, including the medical records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties in written documents, and the arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing. Petitioner cites to a number of SIRVA damages decisions that awarded between $125,000.00 to $127,500.00 for pain and suffering. Pet. Br. at 12-14.3 Petitioner argues that she suffered a moderate-to-severe SIRVA over approximately one and a half years, and her treatment involved a cortisone injection, an MRI, 25 physical therapy sessions, and surgery. Id. 12, 15. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s SIRVA was mild-to- moderate, justifying a lower award. Opp. at 13. In support, he cites to eight cases awarding between $75,000.00 and $85,000.00 for pain and suffering. Id. at 9-10. However, Respondent did not provide a specific valuation for this case. The record in this case best supports the conclusion that Ms. Beckmann suffered a moderate SIRVA for approximately seven months. Petitioner reported pain fairly shortly thereafter. Additionally, Petitioner’s treatment consisted of an MRI, 25 physical therapy sessions, and one steroid injection. Further, she experienced moderate to severe pain for a short period, however by February 28, 2022 (six months post-vaccination) it was reported as zero to five out of ten. Ex. 3 at 81. And she underwent surgery – a relevant consideration when deciding whether to permit a six-figure pain and suffering award, as requested by Petitioner herein. I have identified one prior decision that stands as a useful comparable. Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1556V, 2022 WL 2196412, at *4 (Fed. Cl. May 6, 2022) (awarding $110,000 for pain and suffering). In Hall, the petitioner had a moderate 3 Jackson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0051V, 2023 WL 4401125 (Fed. Cl. June 2, 2023) (awarding $125,000 for pain and suffering); Smith v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0745V, 2021 WL 2652688 (Fed. Cl. May 28, 2021) (awarding $125,000 for pain and suffering); Rafferty v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. May 21, 2020) (awarding $127,500 for pain and suffering). 3 Case 1:22-vv-01289-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 4 SIRVA, one cortisone injection, 18 physical therapy sessions, and a complicated surgery requiring two surgeons over a seven month period. Ms. Beckman had a similar treatment course, but more physical therapy. Balancing the severity of Petitioner’s SIRVA injury and the course of treatment against awards made to similarly-situated Program petitioners, I find that $115,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case (plus the agreed-upon unreimbursed medical expenses). Conclusion For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record as a whole, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $115,308.27 (consisting of $115,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $308.27 in out-of-pocket expenses) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01289-cl-extra-11134973 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-09 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10668386 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1289V BARBARA BECKMANN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 30, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. On November 4, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner, following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 35. 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 $51,429.49 (representing $50,375.00 for fees and $1,054.49 for costs). Petitioner’s Motion for Fees and Costs filed Apr. 24, 2025, ECF No. 42. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of- pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent has not filed a response. And Petitioner did not file a reply. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find reductions in the amount of fees 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 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 2 ATTORNEY FEES Most rates requested for work performed by all attorneys and supporting paralegals through the end of 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. However, the proposed rate of $550.00 for 2025 time billed by Leah Durant requires further evaluation and adjustment. Attorney Leah Durant was previously awarded the lesser rates of $530.00 for work performed in 2025. See Jackman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1749 (June 24, 2025).3 I find no reason to deviate from such reasoned determination and it otherwise is not the practice of OSM to adjust prior rate determinations upward in later cases. See Jefferson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1882V, 2023 WL 387051 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2023). Accordingly, I hereby reduce Ms. Durant’s rate for work performed in 2025 to be consistent with the aforementioned decision. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $70.00.4 Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to briefing damages to be excessive – although not egregiously so. See Status Report, filed Apr. 5, 2024, ECF No. 26 (reporting an impasse in the parties’ damages discussions); Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Damages, filed June 4, 2024, ECF No. 30; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Damages, Aug. 12, 2024, ECF No. 32; Minute Entry, dated Nov. 4, 2024 (for expedited hearing on October 25, 2024). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 16.8 hours drafting the damages brief and 15.3 hours drafting a reply, totaling 32.15 hours. ECF No. 42-1 at 7-9. My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated with that task in full. ECF No. 42-1 at 5-6. Nor am I counting time spent communicating with Petitioner and preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or 3 This decision can be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited July 29, 2025). 4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($550.00 - $530.00) x 3.50 hours billed = $70.00 in fees to be reduced. ECF No. 42-1 at 10 (entry dated 3/10/25). 5 This total is calculated as follows: 32.1 hours billed on 5/8/24, 5/14/24, 6/4/24, 7/5/24, 7/18/24, 7/19/24, and 8/12/24, by Richard Amada at a rate of $463. ECF No. 42-1 at 7-9. 3 signed declarations, which is also being awarded in full. See, e.g., id. at 8 (entry dated 6/5/24). It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the issue of damages in this case, where the issues presented are not complex. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter), 6 in which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.7 6 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 7 See, e.g., Lang v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0972V (June 26, 2025) (12.3 and 7.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); McClelland v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-0605V (June 24, 2025) (9.7 and 11.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Blanco v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0559V (June 16, 2025) (4.2 and 8.0 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Moreno v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0433V (June 13, 2025) (7.3 and 4.0 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Boyd v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0850V (June 13, 2025) (13.3 and 10.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Perez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0746V (June 12, 2025) (13.4 and 5.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Cohen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1060V (June 11, 2025) (8.5 and 4.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1348V (January 30, 2025) (9.7 and 5.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Phillips v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0076V (January 10, 2025) (9.0 and 10.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Wirges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1670V (Dec. 27, 2024) (16.8 and 7.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Tracy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1312V (Dec. 27, 2024) (12.5 and 5.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Tappendorf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1592V (Dec. 27, 2024) (14.1and 7.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Stolze v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0964V (Nov. 22, 2024) (11.8 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Davidson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 1617V (Nov. 22, 2024) (14.9 and 3.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); M.F. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0970V (Nov. Apr. 9, 2024) (13 and 7.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Axelrod v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0980V (Mar. 29, 2024) (11.9 and 12.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Benz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1197V (Mar. 26, 2024) (19.5 and 6.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Hansler-Point v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0045V (Mar. 26, 2024) (9.6 and 4.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Dulaney v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1488V (Mar. 26, 2024) (6.6 and 0.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Glanville v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1973V (Mar. 26, 2024) (8.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Stokes v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0752V (Feb. 29, 2024) (15.3 and 8.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Richardson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0674V (Feb. 9, 2024) (9.2 and 6.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Edwards v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0056V (Feb. 5, 2024) (11.3 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Villa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 0569V (Feb. 5, 2024) (6.0 and 5.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Jackson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0051V (Feb. 5, 2024) (15.4 and 7.7 hours 4 Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate. Beckmann v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1289V, 2024 WL 4986719 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 4, 2024) (also found at ECF No. 35). And I awarded past pain and suffering compensation ($115,000.00) that was closer to the amount proposed by Petitioner ($125,000.00 to $127,500.00), as opposed to $75,000.00 to 85,000.00 proposed by Respondent. Id. at *2-3. But the Act permits only an award of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for entitlement damages briefing (a total of 32.1 hours, or $14,862.30), but only by ten percent. Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)8 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant” in identifying with specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub- area of work performed on the case. This results in a reduction of $1,486.23.9 billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Mulloy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1396V (Nov. 6, 2023) (19.7 and 9.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Gao v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1884V (Oct. 25, 2023) (16.5 and 9.4 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Knasel v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1366V (Oct. 25, 2023) (11.5 and 13.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Langdon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1311V (Oct. 25, 2023) (12.5 and 12.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Mantagas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1720V (Oct. 17, 2023) (6.7 and 4.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Majerus v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1346V (Oct. 17, 2023) (11.0 and 4.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Cosden v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1783 (Aug. 8, 2023) (6.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Balch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0872V (June 30, 2023) (18.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Kestner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0025V (June 22, 2023) (6.00 and 4.10 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Juno v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0643V (June 14, 2023) (5.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Deutsch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0527V (June 12, 2023) (7.4 and 4.4 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Edminister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0184V (May 30, 2023) (15.3 and 3.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Aponte v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1031V (May 18, 2023) (6.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Gray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1708V (May 18, 2023) (5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Horky v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0239V (May 18, 2023) (5.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Thomson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0234V (May 18, 2023) (9.5 and 2.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Rice-Hansen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1338V (May 17, 2023) (12.9 and 6.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively). These decisions can (or will) be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited August 4, 2024). 8 Special masters are permitted to employ percentage reductions to hours billed, provided the reduction is sufficiently explained. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107, 111 (2017); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 702-704 (2016); Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 214 (2009). 9 This amount is calculated as follows: 32.1 hrs. x $463 x .10 = $1,486.23. 5 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 42-2. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. 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 $49,873.26 (representing $48,818.77 for fees and $1,054.49 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 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.10 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 10 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 6