VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01348 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01348 Petitioner: Brian Shaw Filed: 2022-09-21 Decided: 2024-11-12 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-10-15 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 44048.55 AI-assisted case summary: On September 21, 2022, Brian Shaw filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on October 15, 2020 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent conceded entitlement, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found Mr. Shaw entitled to compensation on August 31, 2023. Damages were later decided by proffer. The award accounted for pain and suffering, out-of-pocket expenses, and travel expenses associated with the vaccine injury. On November 12, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded $44,048.55 as a lump sum: $43,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,048.55 in combined unreimbursed expenses and travel costs. A later attorney-fee decision was separate from the injury-compensation award. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine on October 15, 2020, causing SIRVA; COMPENSATED after respondent conceded entitlement. Award $44,048.55 ($43,000 pain/suffering + $1,048.55 unreimbursed/travel expenses). Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran, petition filed September 21, 2022; entitlement August 31, 2023; damages November 12, 2024. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01348-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-10-02 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/31/2023) regarding 29 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01348-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1348V BRIAN SHAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 31, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On September 21, 2022, Brian Shaw 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 15, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that he has not received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for his vaccine-related injury. Petition at 5. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Case 1:22-vv-01348-UNJ Document 31 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 2 On August 31, 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 alleged injury is consistent with a SIRVA. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees 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-01348-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-12-13 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/12/2024) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01348-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1348V UNPUBLISHED BRIAN SHAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 12, 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. Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 21, 2022, Brian Shaw 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 he 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 $43,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $858.89 for out-of-pocket expenses, and $189.66 for travel 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-01348-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 4 I. Fact Evidence Mr. Shaw received a flu vaccine in his left shoulder on October 15, 2020. Ex. 1 at 1. He reported shoulder pain in an email to another employee on October 26, 2020, linking it to the vaccination. Ex. 7 at 1. He was seen for left shoulder soreness from the flu shot on October 27, 2020, and by an orthopedist on November 2, 2020. Ex. 8 at 1, Ex. 4 at 5- 6. The orthopedist recommended that Petitioner wait one month before seeking more care such as an MRI. Id. Petitioner next complained of left shoulder pain months later, on May 4, 2021. Ex. 2 at 6. He did not report pain at night, but with overhead activities and exercise. Id. His pain was reported as a one out of ten, but eight out of ten at worst. Id. An MRI on May 12, 2021, showed tendinosis, a small tear, and bursitis. Ex. 2 at 12-13, 20-21. Petitioner was seen on May 14, 2021, for shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 12-13. Physical therapy was recommended. However, Petitioner stated in a declaration that “I have had physical therapy in the past for an old knee injury … but I did not find it helpful. Additionally, pursuing physical therapy would have been financially draining. For these reasons, I decided to participate in a home exercise plan instead of formal physical therapy for my shoulder.” Ex. 6 at 4. II. Damages Petitioner argues that he is entitled to $62,500.00 for pain and suffering and $1,048.55 for out-of-pocket expenses, including $189.66 for travel expenses. Memorandum in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Damages (“Pet. Br.”), ECF No. 42, at 11, 12. Respondent counters that $40,000.00 is an appropriate reward for pain and suffering in this case, and $54.63 for travel expenses. Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Opp.”), ECF No. 43, at 1-2. He does not contest the $858.89 for out-of-pocket expenses. Opp. at 2 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 my prior discussion in Sections V - VII of Crawford v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01348-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 4 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 Mr. Shaw was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact the awareness of his 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 $60,000.00 to $65,000.00 for pain and suffering. Pet. Br. at 9-12.3 Petitioner argues that his treatment involved three years of at-home physical therapy, an x-ray, an MRI, and three physician appointments. Respondent, by contrast, argues that Petitioner’s SIRVA was mild, involved limited treatment over seven months, and a six-month gap in treatment. Opp. at 9-11. In support, he cites to four cases awarding between $37,500.00 and $45,000.00 for pain and suffering. Id. at 13-17.4 The record in this case best supports the conclusion that Mr. Shaw suffered a mild SIRVA for approximately seven months. There was also a gap in treatment, limited documentation of pain levels, and limited treatment in general. Petitioner’s total treatment consisted of an MRI, an x-ray, three doctor’s appointments, and an at-home exercise program for physical therapy. I note that the cases cited by Petitioner involve damages awards in excess of what is appropriate here, while those cited by Respondent are more comparable. In Mejias, for example, the petitioner had a mild SIRVA, reported moderate range of motion limitations 3 Dagen v. HHS, No. 18-442V, 2019 WL 7187335 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 6, 2019) (awarding $65,000 for pain and suffering); Foster v. HHS, No. 21-647V, 2024 WL 1073009 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 2024) (awarding $60,000 for pain and suffering); Aponte v. HHS, No. 20-1031V, 2022 WL 4707180 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sep. 2, 2022) (awarding $60,000 for pain and suffering). 4 Ramos v. HHS, No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021) (awarding $40,000 in pain and suffering); McGraw v. HHS, No. 21-72V, 2024 WL 1160065 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 15, 2024). (awarding $37,500 for pain and suffering); Valdez v. HHS, No. 21-394V, 2024 WL 1526536 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 28, 2024) (awarding $37,500 for pain and suffering); Mejias v. HHS, No. 19-1944V, 2021 WL 5895622 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 10, 2021) (awarding $45,000 for pain and suffering). 3 Case 1:22-vv-01348-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/13/24 Page 4 of 4 and pain ten months with significant pain for three months. Id. Additionally, the petitioner in Mejias did not attend any physical therapy sessions. Here, Mr. Shaw treated for even less time, and did no report any significant pain. Balancing the severity of Petitioner’s SIRVA injury and the course of treatment against awards made to similarly-situated Program petitioners, I find that $43,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case (plus the agreed-upon unreimbursed medical expenses). IV. Unreimbursed Out-Of-Pocket Expenses Petitioner also seeks $189.66 for travel expenses, in particular mileage associated with his care, which was calculated using the business rate. Pet. Br. at 12. Respondent argues that the appropriate calculation should rely on a tax code-related “medical rate,” which would result in an award of $54.63. Res. Br. at 17-21. As set forth in my recent decision, Gibson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0243V, 2022 WL 17820891, at *12 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 16, 2022), however, it remains my determination that the higher business rate is properly applied in the context of Vaccine Act cases. Therefore, based on the above, I award $189.66 for Petitioner’s travel 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 $44,048.55 (consisting of $43,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, and $1,048.55 in total 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.5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01348-cl-extra-11277881 Date issued/filed: 2026-03-18 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10811133 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1348V BRIAN SHAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: January 30, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On September 21, 2022, Brian Shaw 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. On November 12, 2024, I issued a decision awarding damages following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 48. 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 $83,690.18 (representing $82,408.50 for fees and $1,281.68 for costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs filed Dec. 3, 2024, ECF No. 55. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that he incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 55-4. Respondent reacted to the motion on December 17, 2024, representing that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion (“Response”) at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 57. December 19, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply, noting that “Respondent has not submitted evidence or argument in opposition.” Petitioner’s Reply to Response at 2, ECF No. 58. Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set forth below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section 15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees 2 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. ATTORNEY FEES The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. However, one task performed by Elizabeth Abramson (an associate at the firm) is more properly billed using a paralegal rate. ECF No. 55-2 at 12 (entry dated 9/15/22). “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $14.60.3 Regarding the number of hours billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding the issues of situs, severity, and damages. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 9.7 hours drafting the damages brief and 11.2 hours drafting the reply damages brief, for a combined total of 20.9. ECF No. 55-2 at 33-35; see Status Report, filed June 26, 2024, ECF No. 41 (reporting an impasse in the parties’ damages discussions); Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Damages (“Motion”), filed July 12, 2024, ECF No. 42; Petitioner’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed Aug. 13, 2024, ECF No. 45; Minute Entry, dated Nov. 12, 2024 (for Oct. 25, 2024 expedited hearing). I find the time expended related to damages briefing and argument to be reasonable. However, I deem the total amount expended to brief the entitlement issues of situs and severity to be excessive. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 8.2 hours drafting the motion and 56.5 drafting the reply, for a combined total of 64.7.4 ECF No. 55- 3 This amount consists of ($250 - $177) x 0.2 hrs. = $14.60. 4 This total is calculated as follows: 61.6 hours billed on 2/24/23, 2/28/23, 3/1/23, 3/3/23, 3/15/23 (three entries), 3/17/23, 3/20/23, 3/24/23, 3/27/23, 4/18/23, 4/19/23 (two entries), 4/20/23 (two entries), 4/21/23 (two entries), 4/24/23 (two entries), 5/30/23, 5/31/23, 6/1/23 (two entries), 6/2/23 (two entries), 6/5/23, 6/6/23 (two entries), 6/7/23, and 6/21/23, by Elizabeth Abramson at a rate of $295; 0.5 hours billed on 3 2 at 13-16, 19-20; see Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact, filed Mar. 3, 2023, ECF No. 13; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact, filed June 22, 2023, ECF No. 23. Of this time, 13.9 hours were spent on general research, not usually reimbursed. ECF No. 55-2 at 15-16 (entries dated 3/24/23, 3/27/23, 4/18/23, and 4/19/23). “[I]t is inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). “An inexperienced attorney may not ethically bill his client to learn about an area of law in which he is unfamiliar. If an attorney may not bill his client for this task, the attorney may also not bill the Program for this task.” Carter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1500V, 2007 WL 2241877, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 13, 2007). This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $4,100.50.5 Regarding the remaining time (50.8 hours), it is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the issue of severity in this case. 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 2/24/23, by Jessica Olins at a rate of $320; 0.4 hours billed on 3/3/23 and 3/15/23, by paralegal Chelsea Harris at a rate of $180; 0.4 hours billed on 3/15/23, by Danielle Strait at a rate of $450; and 1.8 hours billed on 6/14/23 (two entries), by Joseph Vuckovich at a rate of $415. ECF No. 55-2 at 13-16, 19-20. 5 This amount consists of $295 x 13.9 hrs. = $4,100.50. 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., Beyer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0101V (Dec. 30, 2024) (14.3 hours billed for drafting a motion for a fact ruling); Collins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1715V (Dec. 27, 2024) (15.2 billed for drafting an entitlement brief and 0.7 hours to review Respondent’s response); Lucey v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0418V (Sept. 30, 2024) (14.1 and 6.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Washburn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0481V (Sept. 26, 2024) (12.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief); Fletcher v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0127V (Apr. 25, 2024) (12.7 and 9.0 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Lamine v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 1560V (Mar. 27, 2024) (8.9 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Davenport v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0206V (Mar. 25, 2024) (16.5 and 2.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and a responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Graczyk v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0376V (Feb. 9, 2024) (5.8 and 8.3 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Sisneros v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-2070V (Feb. 8, 2024) (0.8 and 10.5 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Strand v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0365V (Feb. 5, 2024) (7.9 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and a responsive entitlement brief, respectively); Griswold v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1674V (May 30, 2024) (5.0 and 2.0 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively); McCallum v. Sec’y of Health & 4 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 50.8 hours, or $15,230.50) by thirty 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 $4,569.15.9 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $1,281.68 in overall costs and has provided receipts for all expenses. ECF No. 55-3. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable. 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 $75,005.93 (representing $73,724.25 for fees and $1,281.68 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 Hum. Servs., No. 19-1991V (May 19, 2023) (8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief); Weso v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0596V (May 16, 2024) (6.0 and 1.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement brief and responsive entitlement brief, respectively). These decisions can (or will) be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims websiteand/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited Dec. 7, 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: (47.7 hrs. x $295 x .30) + (0.5 hrs. x $320 x .30) + (0.4 hrs. x $180 x .30) + (0.4 hrs. x $450 x .30) + (1.8 hrs. x $415 x .30) = $1,113.70. 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. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6