VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01692 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01692 Petitioner: Melinda Boards Filed: 2023-12-30 Decided: 2025-05-01 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2022-09-27 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 75408 AI-assisted case summary: Melinda Boards filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a Table injury, specifically shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), as a result of an influenza vaccination received on September 27, 2022. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reviewed the petition and medical records and conceded that Ms. Boards was entitled to compensation. The respondent confirmed that her injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, noting no prior history of shoulder issues, pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination, and that the pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the injection site. The respondent also confirmed that the residual effects of her condition lasted for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, the Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Ms. Boards entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties reached a stipulation for damages. The respondent proffered an award of $70,000.00 for pain and suffering and $5,408.21 to satisfy a Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien. Ms. Boards agreed to this award. The decision awarding damages was issued on May 1, 2025, granting a total of $75,408.21 in compensation. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01692-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-01-30 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/30/2024) regarding 26 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01692-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/30/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1692V MELINDA BOARDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Irene Angelica Firippis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On September 29, 2023, Melinda Boards 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 that she suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 27, 2022. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 17, 20-21. 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-01692-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/30/25 Page 2 of 2 On December 27, 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 states that DICP [the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services] has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and has concluded that compensation is appropriate. DICP has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, 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 and reduced range of motion 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. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Id. at 4-5. 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-01692-cl-extra-10790740 Date issued/filed: 2025-01-30 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10324152 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1692V MELINDA BOARDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Irene Angelica Firippis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On September 29, 2023, Melinda Boards 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 that she suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 27, 2022. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 17, 20-21. 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 December 27, 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 states that DICP [the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services] has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and has concluded that compensation is appropriate. DICP has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, 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 and reduced range of motion 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. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Id. at 4-5. 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-01692-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-05-01 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/31/2025) regarding 32 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01692-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/01/25 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1692V MELINDA BOARDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 31, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Irene Angelica Firippis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On September 29, 2023, Melinda Boards 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 that she suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 27, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On December 30, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On March 27, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $70,000.00 in pain and suffering, and $5,408.21 representing compensation for satisfaction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent 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-01692-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/01/25 Page 2 of 5 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, Petitioner is awarded: A. A lump sum payment of $70,000.00 (for pain and suffering) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. B. A lump sum payment of $5,408.21, representing compensation for satisfaction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Humana. “Event Number: 12409863- 12433633” shall also be included on the check. Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Humana for satisfaction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien and send it to the following address: Humana Subrogation & Other Third Party Liability 004/48120 Patient: Melinda Boards Event Number: 12409863-12433633 P.O. Box 2257 Louisville, KY 40201-2257 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-01692-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/01/25 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ) MELINDA BOARDS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 23-1692V v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran ) ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On September 29, 2023, Melinda Boards (“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 vaccine received on September 27, 2022. Petition at 1. On December 27, 2024, 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 30, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 24; ECF No. 26. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $70,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. Case 1:23-vv-01692-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/01/25 Page 4 of 5 B. Medicaid Lien Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy the Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien in the amount of $5,408.21 which represents full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the Commonwealth of Kentucky may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the Commonwealth of Kentucky 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 September 27, 2022 under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be 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 lump sum payments as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: A. A lump sum payment of $70,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. B. A lump sum payment of $5,408.21, representing compensation for satisfaction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Humana. “Event Number: 12409863-12433633” shall also be included on the check. Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Humana for satisfaction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid lien and send it to the following address: 2 Case 1:23-vv-01692-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/01/25 Page 5 of 5 Humana Subrogation & Other Third Party Liability 004/48120 Patient: Melinda Boards Event Number: 12409863-12433633 P.O. Box 2257 Louisville, KY 40201-2257 Attn: Kent Young Respectfully submitted, YAAKOV M. ROTH Acting Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division TRACI R. PATTON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Irene A. Firippis IRENE A. FIRIPPIS Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-3250 Dated: March 27, 2025 irene.a.firippis@usdoj.gov 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01692-cl-extra-11124066 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-20 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10657479 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1692V MELINDA BOARDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 14, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Irene Angelica Firippis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On September 29, 2023, Melinda Boards 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 September 27, 2022. Petition, ECF No. 1. On March 31, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 32. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $27,947.44 (representing $27,041.90 in fees plus $905.54 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed April 10, 2025, ECF No. 36. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 36 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on April 23, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 37. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. 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 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 I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations. I find the proposed rates to be reasonable and hereby award them herein. However, a couple of the tasks performed by attorney Jonathan Svitak in this matter are more properly billed using a paralegal rate.3 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries reflect reasonably performed tasks, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $50.60. 4 Additionally, the billing records reveal several hours billed on tasks considered administrative in nature.5 Billing at any professional rate for clerical and other administrative work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (noting that tasks “primarily of a secretarial and clerical nature ... should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.”). See also Floyd v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-556V, 2017 WL 1344623, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2017) (“[S]ome tasks performed by paralegals were clerical / secretarial in nature. Examples include scheduling status conferences...preparing compact discs...and filing documents through the CM/ECF 3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on medical records requests, bate stamping documents, drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR Questionnaire, notice of filing, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. See billing entries dated: 4/1/2025 and 4/2/2025. ECF No. 36-2 at 1-25. 4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($450.00 - $197.00 = $253.00 x .20 hrs.) = $50.60 5 See billing entries dated:5/10/2023, 5/11/2023, 6/14/2023, 6/15/2023, 6/16/2023, 1/8/2024, 1/10/2024 (two entries), 1/11/2024 (three entries), 9/26/2024, 9/27/2024, 3/3/2025, 4/2/2025, 4/4/2025, 4/9/2025. ECF No. 36-2 at 1-25, totaling $341.40 in fees claimed for administrative tasks. 3 system.”); Kerridge v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-852V, 2017 WL 4020523, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28, 2017) (noting that billing for “administrative tasks” ... are not compensated in the Vaccine Program); Silver v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1019V, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1058, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2018) (noting that “‘receiv[ing], review[ing,] and process[ing]’ records and court orders, and noting deadlines, are all clerical tasks.”). Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $341.40. Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 36-4 at 1-9. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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 $27,555.44 (representing $26,649.90 in fees plus $905.54 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.6 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6 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