Opinion

Bradberry v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Filed: Sep 9, 2025
Status: Unpublished
On the bench: Brian H. Corcoran
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 39.2%

The opinion

Corrected

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0473V

JOHN BRADBERRY,

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner,

v. Filed: July 31, 2025

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for

Petitioner.

Elilzabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On April 20, 2020, John Bradberry 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 (“SIRVA”) following a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine he received on

November 17, 2018. Petition at 1. On August 9, 2024, I issued a decision finding Petitioner

entitled to compensation and awarding damages, following briefing and expedited

Motions Day arguments by the parties. ECF No. 61.

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.

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 $67,268.62 (representing $65,715.90 for fees and $1,552.72 for costs). Petitioner’s

Application for Fees and Costs filed Feb. 24, 2025, ECF No. 68. 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 March 10, 2025, 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. 69. On March 11, 2025,

Petitioner filed a reply requesting that the amount of fees and costs listed in Petitioner’s

motion be awarded. ECF No. 70.

Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in

connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate,

for the reason 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.

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. Leah Durant

utilized her 2024 hourly rate for one entry related to work performed in 2025. ECF No. 68-

1 at 19 (entry dated 2/11/25). And the attorneys in this case correctly reduced their rates

when performing work that does not require attorney expertise. E.g., id. at 15 (entry dated

8/23/23).

Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to

briefing entitlement and damages to be excessive – although not egregiously so. See

Petitioner’s Brief on Entitlement and Damages, filed Dec. 11, 223, ECF No. 54;

Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on Entitlement and Damages, filed Feb. 16,

2024, ECF No. 57. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 18.5 hours drafting the

entitlement and damages briefing and 18.5 hours drafting a reply, totaling 37.03 hours.

ECF No. 68-1 at 16-17.

My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand

which would have informed this later work or prior research, and I am therefore awarding

fees associated with those tasks in full. E.g., ECF No. 68-1 at 9 (entry for 2.0 hours

finalizing a demand on 12/2/21), 14 (entry for 1.5 hours performing research on 6/13/23).

Nor am I counting time spent communicating with Petitioner and preparing additional

supporting documentation such as affidavits or signed declarations, which is also being

awarded in full. See, e.g., id. at 16 (entry dated 12/12/23).

It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing, even the matter of

both entitlement and 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

3 This total is calculated as follows: 18.5 hours billed on 11/30/23, 12/1/23, 12/4/23, and 12/11/23, by

Richard Amada at a rate of $441; 5.5 hours billed on 1/25/24 and 2/16/24, by Richard Amada at a rate of

$463; and 13.0 hours billed on 2/8/24 and 2/9/24, by Glen MacLeod at a rate of $584.

this matter),4 in which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.5

4 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).

5 See, e.g., Creedon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0309V (June 18, 2025) (8.9 and 6.0 hours