# Piermatteo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services > United States Court of Federal Claims · August 27, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11128324 ## Case - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** August 27, 2025 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Brian H. Corcoran - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11128324 ## Opinion text In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-0277V JOHN PIERMATTEO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 23, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On March 10, 2022, John Piermatteo 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 Guillain Barré syndrome related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine he received on December 11, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On March 28, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to 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 following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 46. Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $61,192.70 (representing $54,640.10 in fees plus $6,552.60 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed July 10, 2025, ECF No. 53. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 53 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on July 17, 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. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 54. On July 18, 2025, Petitioner filed a reply requesting that the amount of fees and costs listed in Petitioner’s motion be awarded. ECF No. 55. 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. Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional separate briefing regarding damages. See Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages, filed July 1, 2024, ECF No. 37; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Brief in Support of Damages, filed Sept. 20, 2024, ECF No. 39. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 14.7 hours drafting the damages brief and 11.5 hours drafting the responsive brief, for a combined total of 26.2 hours. ECF No. 53-1 at 12-13. I find this time to have been reasonably incurred. Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 53-2 at 2-22. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $61,192.70 (representing $54,640.10 in fees plus $6,552.60 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 2 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. 3 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11128324. Public record. Not legal advice.