VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01315 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01315 Petitioner: Stephanie Bennett Filed: 2023-08-15 Decided: 2025-02-20 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2021-10-19 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 95062.42 AI-assisted case summary: On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett filed a petition alleging a SIRVA after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 19, 2021. Respondent conceded entitlement, finding no prior left-shoulder pain, pain within 48 hours, pain limited to the vaccinated shoulder, and no other condition explaining the shoulder pain. The public proffer gives the damages breakdown but limited clinical narrative. On February 20, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $92,500.00 for pain and suffering and $2,562.42 in unreimbursed expenses, for a total of $95,062.42. A later attorney-fee award was separate from injury compensation. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine October 19, 2021 causing SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated; onset within 48 hours. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; COMPENSATED. Award $92,500 pain/suffering + $2,562.42 expenses = $95,062.42. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition August 15, 2023; damages February 20, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01315-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-28 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/29/2024) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01315-UNJ Document 30 Filed 06/28/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1315V STEPHANIE BENNETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 29, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 19, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the flu vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including Petitioner, due to her vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 31-33. 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 1:23-vv-01315-UNJ Document 30 Filed 06/28/24 Page 2 of 2 On May 28, 2024, 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 injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees that the records demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months and 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_23-vv-01315-cl-extra-10734890 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-28 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268300 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1315V STEPHANIE BENNETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 29, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 19, 2021. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the flu vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including Petitioner, due to her vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 31-33. 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). On May 28, 2024, 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 injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees that the records demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01315-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-03-24 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/20/2025) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01315-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/24/25 Page 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1315V STEPHANIE BENNETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 20, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 19, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On May 29, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On February 20, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $95,062.42. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered 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 1:23-vv-01315-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/24/25 Page 2 of 4 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 $95,062.42 (comprised of $92,500.00 for pain and suffering, $226.08 for unreimbursed expenses, and $2,336.34 for lost earnings), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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 1:23-vv-01315-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/24/25 Page 3 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS STEPHANIE BENNETT, Petitioner, No. 23-1315V Chief Special Master Corcoran v. SPU SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION I. Procedural History and Items of Compensation On May 28, 2024, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, and conceded that entitlement to compensation was appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 24. Thereafter, on May 29, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). ECF Nos. 25-26. Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $95,062.42, which is comprised of damages for pain and suffering ($92,500.00), unreimbursed expenses ($226.08), and lost earnings ($2,336.34). This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1 Petitioner agrees. 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. Case 1:23-vv-01315-UNJ Document 45 Filed 03/24/25 Page 4 of 4 II. Form of the Award The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $95,062.42 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE 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 s/ Mallori B. Openchowski MALLORI B. OPENCHOWSKI Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Tel.: (202) 305-0660 mallori.b.openchowski@usdoj.gov DATED: February 20, 2025 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01315-cl-extra-10829206 Date issued/filed: 2025-03-24 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10362618 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1315V STEPHANIE BENNETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 20, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 19, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On May 29, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On February 20, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $95,062.42. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered 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). 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 $95,062.42 (comprised of $92,500.00 for pain and suffering, $226.08 for unreimbursed expenses, and $2,336.34 for lost earnings), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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 STEPHANIE BENNETT, Petitioner, No. 23-1315V Chief Special Master Corcoran v. SPU SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION I. Procedural History and Items of Compensation On May 28, 2024, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, and conceded that entitlement to compensation was appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 24. Thereafter, on May 29, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). ECF Nos. 25-26. Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $95,062.42, which is comprised of damages for pain and suffering ($92,500.00), unreimbursed expenses ($226.08), and lost earnings ($2,336.34). This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 1 Petitioner agrees. 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. II. Form of the Award The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment of $95,062.42 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE 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 s/ Mallori B. Openchowski MALLORI B. OPENCHOWSKI Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Tel.: (202) 305-0660 mallori.b.openchowski@usdoj.gov DATED: February 20, 2025 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 5: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01315-cl-extra-11269756 Date issued/filed: 2026-03-02 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10803028 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1315V STEPHANIE BENNETT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 28, 2026 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine she received on October 19, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On May 29, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding the Petitioner entitled 1Because 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). to compensation. ECF No. 25. On February 20, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 41. Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $38,877.38 (representing $38,131.40 in fees plus $745.98 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed October 30, 2025, ECF No. 47. Also, on October 30, 2025, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out- of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 48. Respondent did not react to the Motion. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason 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 & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein. However, I find there is redundant time billed for the review of status reports and other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. See, e.g., ECF No. 47 at 16-27 (entries dated: 4/3/2024, 5/28/2024, 6/21/2024, 7/29/2024, 8/28/2024, 9/27/2024, 10/28/2024, 11/27/2024, 1/27/2025, 2/25/2025). I am aware that it is a common practice for Conway, Homer, P.C., to have several attorneys work on the same matter, even if one predominantly is responsible for hearings. In some instances, such as when preparing substantive documents like the petition, briefs, and settlement demands, it is reasonable to have another set of eyes review that document (and the Conway Homer, P.C. attorneys typically bill reasonable amounts that reflect their personal expertise, with more experienced counsel needing to spend less time on matters than newer attorneys). It is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review routine filings, such as status reports, joint notices not to seek review, statements of completion, and motions for enlargement of time, when those filings were prepared (and billed for) by another attorney. And this is not the first time I or other special masters have noted this particular issue concerning Conway, Homer, P.C. billing practices. See, e.g., Manetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 WL 7392813 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020); Butler v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-561, 2025 WL 2091616 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 23. 2025). Accordingly, Petitioner will not receive fees for redundant efforts. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of fees to be awarded by $452.60. ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 47 at 30-37. Respondent offered no response to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $38,424.78 (representing $37,678.80 in fees plus $745.98 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. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 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