The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-2132V
CYRIEL BOATWRIGHT
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 8, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On December 15, 2023, Cyriel Boatwright, 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 shoulder injuries related to vaccine
administration following human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines she
received on October 31, 2022. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 10, 2025, I issued a decision
awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 37.
1Because 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 $47,188.17 (representing $45,215.80 in fees plus $1,972.37 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 16, 2025, ECF No. 43. Furthermore,
Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses
were incurred. Motion, Tab C at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on June 25, 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. Response at 2, 4.
ECF No. 44. 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 reason listed below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
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
2
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
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.
However, some of the tasks performed by attorneys Jimmy Zgheib and Jennifer
Sayad 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 reflect reasonably
performed tasks, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a
paralegal.
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. I therefore reduce the total fees to be awarded
herein by five percent as a fair adjustment to account for the paralegal duties issue
mentioned. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of fees to be
awarded by $2,260.79. 4
3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on
medical records requests, bates stamping documents, and drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list,
PAR questionnaire, notice of filing, notice of intent, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to
seek review. Entries that include paralegal tasks billed at an attorney rate include, but are not limited to, the
following: 12/1/2023, 12/4/2023, 12/15/2023, 12/15/2023, 3/13/2024, 11/14/2024 (two entries), 12/11/2024
(two entries), 5/19/2025, 6/9/2025, 6/10/2025, 6/11/2025. Motion, Tab A at 1-37.
4
This amount is calculated as follows: $45,215.80 x 0.05 = $2,260.79.
3
I have also reviewed the requested costs. Petitioner has provided supporting
documentation for all claimed costs. Motion, Tab B at 1-48. Respondent offered no
specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable
and hereby award them in full.
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 $44,927.38 (representing $42,955.01 in fees plus $1,972.37 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 filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
4