VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01414 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01414 Petitioner: Marguerite Taylor Filed: 2022-09-30 Decided: 2024-05-13 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-09-30 Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 168500 AI-assisted case summary: Marguerite Taylor filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on September 30, 2019. She stated that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that she experienced residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and that no other action or compensation had been sought for her injuries. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Ms. Taylor was entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that her alleged GBS was consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table criteria for GBS following a seasonal flu vaccination, and that the onset occurred within the Table timeframe of three to forty-two days after vaccination, with no apparent alternative cause. The respondent also agreed that Ms. Taylor suffered the sequelae of her injury for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, a ruling on entitlement was issued on September 5, 2023, finding Ms. Taylor entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 12, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer proposing an award of $168,500.00 for pain and suffering, which Ms. Taylor agreed to. A decision awarding damages was issued on May 13, 2024, granting Ms. Taylor a lump sum payment of $168,500.00. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01414-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-10-05 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/05/2023) regarding 27 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01414-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1414V MARGUERITE TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 5, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Henry Pfeifer, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend, IN, for Petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On September 30, 2022, Marguerite Taylor 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 30, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other person has ever filed any action, or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement, for her vaccine-related injuries. 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-01414-UNJ Document 30 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 2 Petition at ¶¶ 2, 7-10, 12-13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On September 4, 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 agrees that “petitioner’s alleged GBS is consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) criteria for GBS following the seasonal flu vaccination. Specifically, it is respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner’s records show that she suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months after vaccination.” 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-01414-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-05-13 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/12/2024) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01414-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1414V MARGUERITE TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 12, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Henry Pfeifer, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend, IN, for Petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 30, 2022, Marguerite Taylor 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 30, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other person has ever filed any action, or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement, for her vaccine-related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 7-10, 12-13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 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). Case 1:22-vv-01414-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/24 Page 2 of 5 On September 5, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for GBS. On April 12, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $168,500.00. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $168,500.00 (in pain and suffering) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01414-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ___________________________________ ) MARGUERITE TAYLOR, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 22-1414V ECF ) v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH ) AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ ) PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1 I. Procedural History On September 30, 2022, Marguerite Taylor (“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. She alleges that, as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on September 30, 2019, she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). See Petition. On September 4, 2023, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, concluding that petitioner suffered GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, within the Table timeframe. On September 5, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation for a GBS Table injury. II. Items of Compensation Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded a lump sum of $168,500.00, representative of pain and suffering damages. This amount 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-01414-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/24 Page 4 of 5 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 Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment, as described below, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: A lump sum payment of $168,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.2 Petitioner agrees. 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, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01414-UNJ Document 39 Filed 05/13/24 Page 5 of 5 /s/Colleen C. Hartley COLLEEN C. HARTLEY Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division U. S. Department of Justice P.O. Box l46, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Direct dial: (202) 616-36 Dated: April 12, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01414-cl-extra-10735334 Date issued/filed: 2024-05-13 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268744 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1414V MARGUERITE TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 12, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Henry Pfeifer, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend, IN, for Petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 30, 2022, Marguerite Taylor 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 30, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other person has ever filed any action, or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement, for her vaccine-related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 7-10, 12-13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 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). On September 5, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for GBS. On April 12, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $168,500.00. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $168,500.00 (in pain and suffering) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ___________________________________ ) MARGUERITE TAYLOR, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 22-1414V ECF ) v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) SECRETARY OF HEALTH ) AND HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ ) PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION 1 I. Procedural History On September 30, 2022, Marguerite Taylor (“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. She alleges that, as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on September 30, 2019, she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). See Petition. On September 4, 2023, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, concluding that petitioner suffered GBS as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, within the Table timeframe. On September 5, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation for a GBS Table injury. II. Items of Compensation Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded a lump sum of $168,500.00, representative of pain and suffering damages. This amount 1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after the Damages Decision is issued. 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 Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment, as described below, and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: A lump sum payment of $168,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 2 Petitioner agrees. 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, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. 2 /s/Colleen C. Hartley COLLEEN C. HARTLEY Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division U. S. Department of Justice P.O. Box l46, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Direct dial: (202) 616-36 Dated: April 12, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01414-cl-extra-11050805 Date issued/filed: 2025-05-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10584217 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1414V MARGUERITE TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: April 14, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Henry Pfeifer, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend, IN, for Petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On September 30, 2022, Marguerite Taylor 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 Guillain-Barré syndrome resulting from adverse effects of an influenza vaccine received on September 30, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On April 12, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 38. 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 inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences 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 $12,111.17 (representing $9,514.75 in fees plus $2,596.42 in costs). Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed Mar. 26, 2024, ECF No. 37. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. Respondent reacted to the motion on November 4, 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 at 2-3, ECF No. 42. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons listed below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES A. Attorney Hourly Rates Petitioner has requested that I endorse the hourly rate of $550.00 for attorney Daniel Pfeifer, and the hourly rate of $375.00 for attorney Peter Hamann, for their time billed in the 2021-24 timeframe. These rates require adjustment. Messrs. Pfeifer and Hamann’s proposed rates exceed what I and other special masters have previously awarded the same counsel for their work in the Vaccine Program. See Gold v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0402V, Slip. Op 30 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2021) (awarding Mr. Pfeifer $450.00 per hour, and Mr. Hamann $250.00 per hour, for time billed in 2020); Demoss v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 22-0655V, Slip. Op 40 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 9, 2024) (awarding Mr. Pfeifer $500.00 per hour for the 2021-23 period, and Mr. Hamann hourly rates of $270.00 for 2021, $290.00 for 2022, and $310.00 for 2023). I find no reason to deviate from such reasoned determinations, and therefore reduce the hourly rates for present counsel to be consistent with the aforementioned decisions. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $475.50. 3 Counsel should note for future reference that retroactive rate increases are not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g. Ramirez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1180V, 2019 WL 948385, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2019) (noting that counsel “should only submit billing logs that reflect the hourly rate previously awarded to him.”). However, based on the factors relevant to determining proper hourly rates for Program attorneys, I find it reasonable to award for 2024 time Mr. Pfeifer his proposed rate of $550.00. and Mr. Hamann his proposed rate of $375.00. B. Litigation Costs Petitioner requests $2,596.42 in overall costs. ECF No. 41-2. Such costs are associated with obtaining medical records, the Court’s filing fee and finance charges. I have reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of them to be reasonable, with the exception of $538.32 incurred for items that are not reimbursable in the Vaccine 3 This amount is calculated as: ($550 - $500 = $50 x 2.10hrs.) + ($375 - $290 = $85 x 2.60 hrs.) + ($375 - $310 = $65 x 2.30 hrs.) = $475.50. 3 Program. 4 Special masters have concluded that, “[a]s a general matter, ‘interest cannot be recovered in a suit against the [g]overnment in the absence of an express waiver of sovereign immunity from an award of interest.’” Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691, at 706 (2016), citing Preseault v. U.S., 52 Fed. Cl. 667 (2002); Response at 3. Thus, the Vaccine Act “does not provide for an award related to interest accumulated on those fees and costs.” Raymo, at 706; Response at 3, n.1. Accordingly, I hereby reduce the litigation costs by $538.32, since that sum reflects Petitioner’s interest charges. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT in part Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $11,097.35 (representing $9,039.25 in fees plus $2,058.10 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Daniel Henry Pfeifer. 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. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 See report of daily finance charges applied to Petitioner’s outstanding bill at ECF No. 41-2 at 27-28. 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4