VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01535 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01535 Petitioner: Amanda Wade Filed: 2022-10-17 Decided: 2024-01-26 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2021-12-07 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 82500 AI-assisted case summary: Amanda Wade filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 17, 2022. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on December 7, 2021. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on December 12, 2023, conceding that the petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she suffered residual effects for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on December 14, 2023, finding the petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on December 26, 2023, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation. The proffer recommended an award of $82,500.00 for pain and suffering, which the petitioner agreed to. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision on December 26, 2023, awarding Amanda Wade a lump sum payment of $82,500.00, representing compensation for all damages available under the Act. Petitioner was represented by Daniel Alholm of Alholm Law PC, and respondent was represented by Bridget Corridon of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Theory of causation field: Amanda Wade filed a petition alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on December 7, 2021. The respondent conceded that the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that residual effects lasted more than six months. A ruling on entitlement was issued on December 14, 2023, by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, finding the petitioner entitled to compensation. On December 26, 2023, a decision was issued by Chief Special Master Corcoran awarding a lump sum of $82,500.00 for pain and suffering, which the petitioner accepted. The case falls under the Vaccine Injury Table for SIRVA. Petitioner was represented by Daniel Alholm, and respondent by Bridget Corridon. The public decision does not detail specific medical experts, the mechanism of injury, or the specific diagnostic findings. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01535-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-01-17 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/14/2023) regarding 27 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01535-UNJ Document 39 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1535V AMANDA WADE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 14, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on December 7, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 12, 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 [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is 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-01535-UNJ Document 39 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 2 consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.” 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-01535-cl-extra-10736434 Date issued/filed: 2024-01-17 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269844 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1535V AMANDA WADE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 14, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on December 7, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 12, 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 [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is 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). consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.” 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-01535-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-01-26 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/26/2023) regarding 31 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01535-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1535V AMANDA WADE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 26, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on December 7, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 14, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On December 26, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $82,500.00, representing compensation for pain and suffering. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, 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-01535-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 5 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 $82,500.00 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-01535-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS AMANDA WADE, Petitioner, No. 22-1535V v. Chief Special Master Corcoran ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on December 7, 2021. Petition at 1. On December 12, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on December 14, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 26; ECF No. 27. I. Item of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $82,500.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. Case 1:22-vv-01535-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/26/24 Page 4 of 5 This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $82,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Amanda Wade: $82,500.00 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01535-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/26/24 Page 5 of 5 /s/ Bridget A. Corridon BRIDGET A. CORRIDON Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-4117 Fax: (202) 616-4310 Email: bridget.corridon@usdoj.gov Date: December 26, 2023 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01535-cl-extra-10736358 Date issued/filed: 2024-01-26 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10269768 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1535V AMANDA WADE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 26, 2023 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on December 7, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 14, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On December 26, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $82,500.00, representing compensation for pain and suffering. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, 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). 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 $82,500.00 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 AMANDA WADE, Petitioner, v. No. 22-1535V Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on December 7, 2021. Petition at 1. On December 12, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury, and on December 14, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 26; ECF No. 27. I. Item of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $82,500.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following 1: a lump sum payment of $82,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Amanda Wade: $82,500.00 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division JULIA M. COLLISON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 /s/ Bridget A. Corridon BRIDGET A. CORRIDON Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-4117 Fax: (202) 616-4310 Email: bridget.corridon@usdoj.gov Date: December 26, 2023 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 5: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01535-cl-extra-10735050 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-11 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268460 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1535V AMANDA WADE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 8, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law P.C., Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 17, 2022, Amanda Wade filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On December 26, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 36. Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $23,555.69 (representing $22,572.50 in fees plus $983.19 in costs). Petitioner’s 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). Application for Fees and Costs (“Motion”), filed January 11, 2024, ECF No. 36. Petitioner also filed a signed statement representing that she had incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 36-4. Respondent reacted to the Fees Motion on January 12, 2024, reporting 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. 37. On January 12, 2024, Petitioner indicated that she does not intend to file a substantive reply. ECF No. 38. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason set forth below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to 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 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 2 ATTORNEY FEES The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2023 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted herein. Petitioner has also requested the hourly rate of $475 for 2024 work performed by attorney Daniel Alholm, representing a rate increase of $25. ECF No. 36 - 1 at 3. I find the requested rate to be reasonable. However, the overall fees to be awarded must still be reduced. Billing records show six hours 3 of entries that are more properly characterized as paralegal tasks, including requesting medical records, following up with medical records providers, preparing exhibits and filing documents. Attorneys may be compensated for paralegal-level work, but only at a rate that is comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal. See, e.g. Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. XX-XXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010) (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989)); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016); Riggins. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *20-21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009); Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-535, 2008 WL 5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008). Accordingly, I hereby reduce Attorney Alholm’s hourly rate for all tasks considered paralegal in nature to $165 per hour. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded herein by $1,597.50. 4 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $983.19 in overall costs. ECF No. 36-3. This amount is comprised of obtaining medical records and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed all of the requested costs and find them to be reasonable and shall award them in full. 3 Examples of tasks considered paralegal in nature: 7/11/22: “Reviewed records status report from LCS” 8/1/22: “Email from LCS regarding the availability of imaging.” 9/23/22: “Reviewed the Star Valley records to confirm the influenza vaccine record was a part of it and to see if it shows which arm thee vaccine was administered in. Did memo to file on such.” See ECF No. 36-2. 4 This amount consists of: ($425 - $165 = $260 x 4.50 hrs.) + ($450 - $165 = $285 x 1.50 hrs.) = $1,597.50. 3 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 $21,958.19 (representing $20,975.00 in fees plus $983.19 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Daniel Alholm. 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 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4