The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1550V
MEAGAN BROWN SCHMIDT,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 28, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On July 7, 2021, Meagan Brown Schmidt 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 vaccination she received on September 26, 2018.
Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 21, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to
Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 34.
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
inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences 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 $27,623.04 (representing $26,191.00 in fees plus $1,432.04 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 16, 2024. ECF No. 39.
Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no
personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on September 17, 2024, 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. 40. Petitioner filed a reply requesting an award of fees and costs as
indicated in the Motion. ECF No. 41.
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, and will therefore be adopted.
However, a few of the tasks performed by attorneys 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 are reasonable, 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 $372.80. 4
Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.
ECF No. 39-2. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought.
I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
3
Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting and filing basic documents such as an exhibit list,
PAR Questionnaire, notice of f iling exhibit list, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notices not to
seek review, and f iling medical records. See billing entries dated: 11/16/21 (three entries); 6/21/23. ECF
No. 39.
4
This amount consists of ($420 - $172 = $248 x 1.20 hrs.) + (553 - $177 = $376 x 0.20 hrs.) = $372.80.
2
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 $27,250.24 (representing $25,818.20 in fees plus $1,432.04 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. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
3