VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01636 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01636 Petitioner: E.C.B. Filed: 2022-11-02 Decided: 2024-04-02 Vaccine: DTaP Vaccination date: 2019-11-13 Condition: benign granuloma Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 25716 AI-assisted case summary: Emily Barmichael, as the parent and legal representative of her minor child E.C.B., filed a petition on November 2, 2022, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine administered to E.C.B. on November 13, 2019, caused her daughter to develop an aluminum allergy, post-vaccination granuloma, lymphadenopathy, and resultant sequelae. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reviewed the petition and medical records. In a Rule 4(c) Report filed on June 22, 2023, the respondent conceded that E.C.B. developed a benign granuloma in her right thigh, which was more likely than not a localized allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine. The respondent also stated that no other causes for E.C.B.'s granuloma were identified and that the injury satisfied the statutory requirement of lasting at least six months or resulting in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention. Based on this concession, Special Master Katherine E. Oler issued a Ruling on Entitlement on June 22, 2023, finding E.C.B. entitled to compensation for the benign granuloma. The respondent did not concede petitioner's other claimed injuries, including aluminum allergy, lymphadenopathy, and/or dermatitis. On March 7, 2024, the respondent filed a proffer agreeing to an award of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and $715.94 to satisfy a Medicaid lien. The Special Master adopted the proffer in a Decision Awarding Damages issued on April 2, 2024, awarding a total of $25,715.94. The award for pain and suffering was to be paid as a lump sum check to petitioner as guardian/conservator for the benefit of E.C.B., contingent upon documentation of guardianship. The Medicaid lien payment was to be made jointly to petitioner and Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. Petitioner was represented by Ramon Rodriguez III of Sands Anderson PC, and the respondent was represented by James Lopez of the U.S. Department of Justice. Special Master Katherine E. Oler presided over the case. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Emily Barmichael alleged that the DTaP vaccine administered to minor E.C.B. on November 13, 2019, caused an aluminum allergy, post-vaccination granuloma, lymphadenopathy, and resultant sequelae. The respondent conceded that E.C.B. developed a benign granuloma in her right thigh, which was more likely than not a localized allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine, and that no other causes were identified. The respondent also confirmed the injury met the duration requirement. The Special Master found entitlement based on this concession. The parties agreed to an award of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and $715.94 for a Medicaid lien, totaling $25,715.94. The theory of causation was an off-Table localized allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine. No specific medical experts were named in the provided text. The Special Master was Katherine E. Oler. Petitioner's counsel was Ramon Rodriguez III, and respondent's counsel was James Lopez. The decision awarding damages was issued on April 2, 2024. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01636-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-08-01 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 6/22/2023) regarding 18 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 25 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1636V Filed: June 22, 2023 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EMILY BARMICHAEL, as parent and legal * representative of her minor child, E.C.B., * * Petitioner, * * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ramon Rodriguez III, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner James Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Oler, Special Master: On November 2, 2022, Emily Barmichael (“Ms. Barmichael” or “Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine her daughter, E.C.B., received on 1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 25 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 2 November 13, 2019 caused her to develop “an aluminum allergy, post-vaccination granuloma, lymphadenopathy and resultant sequelae.” Id. at 1; Resp’t’s Rep. at 1. On June 22, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1-2, ECF No. 17. Specifically, Respondent states that Medical personnel at the DICP, Department of Health and Human Services, have reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and concluded that E.C.B. developed a benign granuloma in her right thigh, which was more likely than not a localized allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine. No other causes for E.C.B.’s granuloma have been identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). In addition, given the medical records outlined above, petitioner has satisfied the statutory requirement that E.C.B.’s injury lasted for at least six months, or resulted in “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i),(iii). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 12. Respondent notes that the scope of damages should be limited to E.C.B.’s benign granuloma and related sequelae, and not Petitioner’s claimed development of an aluminum allergy, lymphadenopathy, and/or dermatitis. Id. In view of Respondent's position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for a benign granuloma. A separate order for the damages phase of this case will issue shortly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Katherine E. Oler Katherine E. Oler Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01636-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-04-02 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/7/2024) regarding 36 DECISION of Special Master - Proffer. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1636V Filed: March 7, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EMILY BARMICHAEL, as parent and legal * representative of her minor child, E.C.B., * * Petitioner, * * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ramon Rodriguez III, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner James Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 2, 2022, Emily Barmichael (“Petitioner”) filed a petition on behalf of her daughter, E.C.B., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that E.C.B. developed an “aluminum allergy, post-vaccination granuloma, lymphadenopathy, and resultant sequelae” from the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine E.C.B. received on November 13, 2019. See Pet. at 1; ECF No. 35 (“Proffer”) at 1. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 7 On June 22, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding entitlement to compensation. Resp’t’s Rep. at 1, ECF No. 17. Specifically, Respondent stated that Medical personnel at the DICP, Department of Health and Human Services, have reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and concluded that E.C.B. developed a benign granuloma in her right thigh, which was more likely than not a localized allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine. No other causes for E.C.B.’s granuloma have been identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). In addition, given the medical records outlined above, petitioner has satisfied the statutory requirement that E.C.B.’s injury lasted for at least six months, or resulted in “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i),(iii). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 12. On the same day, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation for a benign granuloma due to Respondent’s concession in his Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 18. Respondent filed a proffer on March 7, 2024 (ECF No. 35), agreeing to issue the following payment: A lump sum of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of E.C.B. for the benefit of E.C.B., and A lump sum of $715.94, representing compensation for satisfaction of Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc.’s (“SHP”) Medicaid Managed Care Plan Lien, payable jointly to petitioner and to Simply Healthcare P.O. Box 659940 San Antonio, TX 78265 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to SHP for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. These amounts represent all elements of compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a). I adopt Respondent’s proffer attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Katherine E. Oler Katherine E. Oler Special Master 3 Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ___________________________________ ) EMILY BARMICHAEL, as parent and ) legal representative of her minor child, ) E.C.B., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 22-1636V v. ) Special Master Katherine E. Oler ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION I. Procedural History On November 2, 2022, Emily Barmichael, as parent and legal representative of her minor child, E.C.B., (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq. (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”). Petitioner alleged that E.C.B. developed an “aluminum allergy, post-vaccination granuloma, lymphadenopathy, and resultant sequelae” caused-in-fact by the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine administered on November 13, 2019. See Petition at 1. On June 22, 2023, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, concluding that E.C.B. developed a benign granuloma in her right thigh, which was more likely than not a localized allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine. ECF No. 17. Respondent did not concede petitioner’s other claimed injuries, including an aluminum allergy, lymphadenopathy, and/or dermatitis. On June 22, 2023, Special Master Oler issued a ruling on entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation for a benign granuloma. ECF No. 18. Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 5 of 7 II. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner, for the benefit of E.C.B., should be awarded $25,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Medicaid Lien Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc.’s (“SHP”) Medicaid Managed Care Plan Lien in the amount of $715.94, which represents full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action SHP may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments SHP has made to or on behalf of petitioner from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her alleged vaccine-related injury suffered on or about November 13, 2019, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a), for any and all claims arising from the DTaP vaccination administered on November 13, 2019. Petitioner agrees. III. Form of the Award The parties recommend that the compensation provided to E.C.B. should be made through a combination of lump sum payments as described below, and request that the Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:1 A. A lump sum payment of $25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/conservator of E.C.B., for the benefit of E.C.B. No payments shall be made 1 Should E.C.B. 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 medical expenses, lost future earnings, and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 6 of 7 until petitioner provides respondent with documentation establishing that she has been appointed as the guardian/conservator of E.C.B.’s estate. If petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian/conservator of the estate of E.C.B., any such payment shall be made to the party or parties appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of E.C.B. upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary. Petitioner agrees E.C.B. is a minor child. Petitioner must file evidence of guardianship. B. A lump sum payment of $715.94, representing compensation for satisfaction of SHP’s Medicaid Managed Care Plan Lien, payable jointly to petitioner and to: Simply Healthcare P.O. Box 659940 San Antonio, TX 78265 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to SHP for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. IV. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment A. Lump Sum paid to petitioner as guardian/conservator of the estate of E.C.B. for the benefit of E.C.B. $25,000.00 B. Lump Sum paid jointly to petitioner and to Simply Healthcare: $715.94 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 3 Case 1:22-vv-01636-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/02/24 Page 7 of 7 TRACI R. PATTON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s James V. Lopez James V. Lopez 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) 616-3655 Fax: (202) 616-4310 Email: james.lopez@usdoj.gov Date: March 7, 2024 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01636-cl-extra-11053899 Date issued/filed: 2025-05-20 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10587311 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1636V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EMILY BARMICHAEL, as parent and * legal representative of her minor child, * E.C.B. * Special Master Shah * Petitioner, * Filed: March 28, 2025 * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUM. SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ramon Rodriguez, III, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner. James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On November 2, 2022, Emily Barmichael (“Petitioner”) filed a petition on behalf of her daughter, E.C.B., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that E.C.B. developed an “aluminum allergy, post-vaccination granuloma, lymphadenopathy, and resultant sequelae” from the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine E.C.B. received on November 13, 2019. See id. On March 7, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer, which former Special 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 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2018)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. Master Katherine E. Oler adopted in a Decision awarding compensation filed that same day. ECF Nos. 35, 36. Petitioner was awarded $25,000.00 in pain and suffering and $719.94 to satisfy a Medicaid lien. ECF No. 36. On September 12, 2024, Petitioner filed an application (“Fees App.”) for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 39. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $57,209.19, representing $52,447.20 in attorneys’ fees, $2,078.55 in attorneys’ costs, and $2,683.44 for costs personally incurred by Petitioner. Fees App. at 9. Respondent responded to the motion (“Fees Resp.”) on September 13, 2024, stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting “that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Fees Resp. at 2, 4 (ECF No. 41). Petitioner filed a reply on September 13, 2024. ECF No. 42. This matter is now ripe for consideration. I. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Section 15(e)(1) of the Vaccine Act allows the special master to award “reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other costs.” § 300aa–15(e)(1)(A)–(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible so long as the special master finds that the petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a proffer, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521-22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991) (“[T]he reviewing court must grant the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that describe the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895 n.11. The petitioner bears the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id. A. Reasonable Hourly Rates Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for her attorney, Ramon Rodriguez, III, M.D.: $458.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $482.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $510.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. These rates are consistent with what counsel has previously been awarded for his Vaccine Program work, and I find them to be 2 reasonable here. See, e.g., Canady v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1624V, 2025 WL 863084, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 21, 2025). B. Reasonable Hours Expended Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well-established that billing for administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g., Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02- 1616V, 2018 WL 2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018). The overall hours spent on this matter appear to be largely reasonable; however, a minor reduction is necessary. It appears that Petitioner’s counsel billed at his full hourly rate for travel time to and from a client visit. Petitioner’s counsel billed six hours for travel from Winter Park, Florida to High Springs, Florida to attend a client meeting on May 31, 2023; the trip was billed at his full 2023 hourly rate of $482.00. Ex. 19 at 9. In the Vaccine Program, special masters traditionally have compensated time spent traveling (when no other work was being performed) at one-half an attorney’s hourly rate. See Quinones v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-154V, 2023 WL 6464905, at *24 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 25, 2011); Hocraffer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011 WL 3705153, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 2, 2023); Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 27, 2009). This adjustment results in a reduction of $1,446.00.3 Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $51,001.20. C. Attorneys’ Costs Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a total of $2,078.55 in attorneys’ costs. This amount consists of costs associated with acquiring medical records, the Court’s filing fee, travel mileage, and postage. Ex. 18 at 1. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting all requested costs and Respondent has not identified any specific costs as objectionable. I find these costs to be reasonable and I award them in full. D. Petitioner’s Costs Petitioner requests a total of $2,683.44 in costs. See Exs. 16-17. This amount consists of a $2,500.00 retainer paid to The Law Office of Marilyn C. Belo related to Petitioner’s trust, payment to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for guardianship costs, various guardianship documents, a family guardianship course, and postage. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the costs requested and I award them in full. 3 This amount is calculated as $482.00 x 1/2 = $241.00 x 6 hrs = $1,446.00. 3 II. Conclusion In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2018), I have reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and find that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. I find that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and her counsel as follows: Attorneys’ Fees Requested $52,447.20 (Reduction to Fees) ($1,446.00) Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $51,001.20 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $2,078.55 (Reduction to Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $2,078.55 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $53,079.75 Petitioner’s Costs Requested $2,683.44 (Reduction to Petitioner’s Costs) - Total Petitioner’s Costs Awarded $2,683.44 Accordingly, I award the following: 1) a lump sum in the amount of $53,079.75, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. 2) a lump sum in the amount of $2,683.44, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s personally incurred costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jennifer A. Shah Jennifer A. Shah Special Master 4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 4