The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0751V
BRANDON FARRIS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 23, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On January 15, 2021, Brandon Farris 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 he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as
a result of an influenza vaccine that was administered on January 31, 2019. Petition at 1.
On April 16, 2024, I issued a decision awarding damages following briefing and expedited
Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 42.
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 $56,760.98 (representing $53,724.80 for fees and $3,036.18 for costs). Petitioner’s
Application for Fees and Costs filed Oct. 21, 2024, ECF No. 49. In accordance with
General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred no
out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on October 29, 2024, representing that he is
satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met
in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion.
Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 50.
On October 30, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply, criticizing Respondent’s lack of a
specific response to his motion and reiterating that she is entitled to an award of attorney’s
fees and costs. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Application
for Fee and Costs. ECF No. 51. Petitioner insists that “Petitioner’s counsel has accurately
recorded the time spent on this case and has filed receipts for documenting the litigation
expenses incurred.” Id. at 1.
Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in
connection, I find reductions in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate,
for the reasons set forth below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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.
2
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
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable
and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. However, a
few of the tasks performed by Mr. Williams (an associate attorney at the firm) 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). This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $335.30.4
Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to
briefing damages to be excessive – although not egregiously so. See Petitioner’s Brief on
Damages, filed Jan. 3, 2023, ECF No. 31; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on
Damages, filed Mar. 20, 2023, ECF No. 33; Minute Entry, dated Apr. 16, 2024 (regarding
Expedited Motions Day Hearing on March 28, 2024). Petitioner’s counsel expended
approximately 17.8 hours drafting the damages briefing and 18.5 hours drafting a reply
damages brief, totaling 36.35 hours. ECF No. 49-1 at 10.
3 These entries, drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, notice of filings, statement of completion,
PAR Questionnaire, joint notice not to seek review, and election to accept judgment are dated as follows:
4/22/21 (two entries), 4/23/21, 11/4/21, 1/3/23, 4/19/24, and 5/1/24. ECF No. 49-1 at 5-6, 10, 13.
4 This amount consists of ($325 - $172) x 1.4 hrs.+ ($358 - $186) x 0.2 hrs.+ ($486 - $197) x 0.3. hrs. =
$335.30.
5 This total is calculated as follows: 14.5 hours billed on 12/28/22, 12/29/22, and 12/30/22, by Christopher
Williams, at a rate of $341; and 21.8 hours billed on 1/3/23, 3/6/23, 3/9/23, 3/16/23, and 3/20/23, by
Christopher Williams, at a rate of $358.
3
My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand
which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated
with that task in full. ECF No. 49-1 at 6-9. Nor am I counting time spent communicating
with Petitioner, preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or
signed declarations, and participating the expedited motions day hearing, which is also
being awarded in full. See, e.g., id. at 10, 12 (entries dated 3/21/23, 3/27/24, and 3/28/24).
It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing, even the matter of
damages in this case, where the issues presented are not complex. I have identified
numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter), 6 in
which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.7
Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate.
ECF No. 42. But the Act permits only an award of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for entitlement damages briefing (a total
6 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are
excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
7 See, e.g., O’Donnell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1508V (Nov. 22, 2024) (15.9 and 6.4 hours
billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Feitel v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 21-1370V May 6, 2024) (14.7 and 6.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and
responsive damages brief, respectively); Hobbs v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1442V (Apr. 9,
2024) (18.0 and 4.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively);
Poteet v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1295V (Apr. 1, 2024) (19.4 and 12.2 hours billed for drafting
a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Vallee v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
20-1381V (Mar. 26, 2024) (7.1 and 4.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages
brief, respectively); Staffaroni v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1951V (Nov. 2, 2023) (19.2 and 5.4
hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Granville v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V (Oct. 25, 2023) (16.4 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief
and responsive damages brief, respectively); Schenck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1768V
(Oct. 20, 2023) (8.0 and 3.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief,
respectively); Weil v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0831V (Oct. 20, 2023) (14.5 and 1.5 hours
billed for drafting a damages brief and reviewing Respondent’s responsive damages brief, respectively);
Hernandez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1572V (July 21, 2023) (14.7 hours billed for drafting
a damages brief); Miles v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0146V (July 20, 2023) (16.4 and 7.2 hours
billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Merchant v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 20-0450V (July 12, 2023) (15.5 and 2.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and
responsive damages brief, respectively); Elenteny v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1972V (May
31, 2023) (16.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Miller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
1559V (May 30, 2023) (17.5 and 4.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages
brief, respectively). These decisions can be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website,
and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited Dec. 7, 2024).
4
of 36.3 hours, or $12,748.90) by twenty percent.8 Such an across-the-board reduction
(which I am empowered to adopt)9 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work,
without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant” in identifying with
specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub-area of work performed on the
case. This results in a reduction of $2,549.78.10
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner requests $3,036.18 in overall costs and has provided receipts for all
expenses. ECF No. 49-2. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be
reasonable. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought.
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $53,875.90 (representing $50,839.72 for
fees and $3,036.18 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.11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8 Because the amount of excessive hours was not as egregious as in previous cases, I will reduce the hours
billed by a lower amount than I otherwise would apply. See, e.g., Callejas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-1767V, 2023 WL 9288086 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 24, 2023).
9 Special masters are permitted to employ percentage reductions to hours billed, provided the reduction is
sufficiently explained. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107, 111 (2017);
Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 702-704 (2016); Sabella v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 214 (2009).
10 This amount is calculated as follows: (14.5 hrs. x $341 x ,20) + (21.8 hrs. x $358 x .20) = $2,549.78.
11 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
5