The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1262V
RICHARD POLLACK,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 9, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On April 21, 2021, Richard Pollack 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration resulting from a covered vaccine received on October 15, 2020. Petition,
ECF No. 1. On September 30, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to
Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 47.
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 $56,661.67 (representing $56,003.10 in fees, plus $ 658.57 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed October 11, 2024. ECF No. 52. Furthermore, Petitioner
filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 50. Respondent reacted to the motion on October 25, 2024,
representing 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. ECF No. 54. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
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 reasons stated below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to
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
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
2
ATTORNEY FEES
A. Hourly Rates
The hourly rates requested for attorneys Wallace, Gambella, Mazoff, and Stone
(plus their associated paralegals) for all time billed in this mater are reasonable and
consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted. But the total
amount of fees to be awarded requires adjustment.
B. Paralegal Tasks Billed at Attorney Rates
The invoices reflect several instances in which tasks that are considered paralegal in
nature were billed at hourly rates ranging between $241 - $424. 3 In the Vaccine Program,
“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 the work actually
performed on these paralegal tasks was reasonable, it cannot be billed at an attorney-
level rate.
C. Intra-office communication
Additionally, the invoices reveal a common practice of intra-office communications and
redundant billing entries where multiple attorneys performed work on the same tasks. 4
For example, Attorneys Wallace, Gambella, and Stone billed over 16.60 hours on inter-
office communications discussing case matters; performing work on the same tasks; and
participating in conferences and meetings with each other, suggesting some degree of
3
Examples of tasks considered paralegal in nature: 4/7/21; 4/12/21: “phone call to f ollow up on medical
records f rom Winchester Orthopedic Associates.” 4/13/21; 4/16/21: “Review and prepare documents for
f iling.” 4/16/21: “Compare 2nd set of medical records from Winchester to confirm they were a duplicate
copy.” 4/26/21 (two entries); 12/6/21: “Prepare amended statement of completion.” 11/16/22; 10/11/23;
3/11/24; (two entries0: “Draft statement of completion and file notice of completion and motion for ruling on
the record.” ECF No. 53-1.
4
Some examples of intra-office communications: 3/30/21 (two entries); 3/31/21; 4/7/21; 4/8/21; 4/12/21
(three entries); 4/13/21 (three entries); 4/14/21 (two entries); 4/16/21 (two entries); 4/26/21 (two entries);
10/11/21 (two entries); 12/20/21; 5/31/22; 7/18/22 (three entries); 9/1/22 (two entries); 6/6/23 (two entries);
7/5/23; 7/10/23; 7/13/23 (three entries); 7/14/23 (three entries); 7/16/23; 7/17/23; 7/18/23 (three entries);
7/20/23 (two entries); 8/9/23; 8/30/23; 9/26/23 (two entries). See ECF No. 53-1.
3
unnecessary overlap and inefficiency compounding the high amount of fees requested
herein.
It is well established that attorney’s fees may be reduced due to duplicative billing
practices. See Tetlock v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-56, 2017 WL 5664257
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 1, 2017) (reduced counsel’s overall fee award for excessive
and duplicative billing); Panaitescu v. Sec’ y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-753V,
2017 WL 4876036 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2017) (reduced counsel’s overall fee
award due to billing for excessive email correspondence with the client and with each
other); See also Ericzon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10–103V, 2016 WL
447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced counsel's overall fee award by 10
percent due to excessive and duplicative billing).
D. Summary of Fee Reduction
In determining a fees award, a special master has discretion to exclude hours
expended that are “’excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary,’” based on the
special master’s “experience or judgment.” Hocraffer v. HHS, No. 99-533V, 2011 WL
6292218, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2011). And in evaluating a motion for attorney’s fees
and costs, special masters “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade
accountants.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011).
Instead, in appropriate circumstances they may make reasonable, across-the-board
percentage adjustments.
Here, such an overall percentage cut is reasonable, and preferrable to a time-
consuming line-by-line review of the bill. Attorney Jessica Wallace and the Siri &
Glimstad, LLP firm have previously received across the board fees reduction for similarly
inefficient billing practices. See Garrett v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-283V,
2025 WL 1011479 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 28, 2025).
I therefore reduce the total fees to be awarded herein by fifteen percent as a fair
adjustment to account for the billing issues hereto. This results in an overall reduction in
the amount of fees to be awarded herein of $8,400.46. 5
5
This amount is calculated as ($56,003.10 x 0.15) = $8,400.46.
4
E. Litigation Costs
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs (ECF No. 53-
1 at 29-38). And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought.
I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable.
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 $48,261.21 (representing $47,602.64 in fees, plus $658.57 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 f iling a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
5