The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2207V
FRAN BASKIN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 1, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Renée J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renée J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On November 23, 2021, Fran Baskin 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 vaccine she received on October 1, 2019. Petition,
ECF No. 1. On June 2, 2025, I issued a decision finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation and awarding damages, following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 45.
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 $30,510.46 (representing $29,687.38 in fees plus $823.08 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 17, 2025, ECF No. 50.
Furthermore, Petitioner has filed as signed statement representing that no personal out-
of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 50-1 at 1.
Respondent reacted to the motion on September 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. 51. 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 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 by attorney Renée Gentry through 2025 are reasonable
and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be awarded herein.
Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding
entitlement and damages. See Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact, filed Feb. 17,
2024, ECF No. 38; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Motion for Findings
of Fact, filed May 15, 2024, ECF No. 43; Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately
6.00 hours drafting the entitlement and damages brief and 5.50 hours drafting the
responsive brief, for a combined total of 11.50 hours. ECF No. 50-1 at 7-8. I find this
amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s fees requested.
However, it is evidenced in the billing records that numerous tasks performed by
attorney Gentry 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). Counsel is admonished that although these
billing entries reflect reasonably performed tasks, they must be charged at a reduced rate
comparable to that of a paralegal.
Also, the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request reveal that attorney
Gentry seeks compensation for several paralegal tasks that have been improperly block-
billed with attorney level work. 4 Block-billing attorney level work along with paralegal
3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on
medical records requests 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: 8/31/2021,
9/12/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/24/2021, 10/27/2021, 11/15/2021, 11/24/2021 (four entries), 8/25/2022,
8/30/2022, 11/20/2022, 2/22/2024, 6/4/2025, 6/6/2025. ECF No. 50-1 at 5-22.
4
Examples of entries that include both paralegal and attorney tasks include, but are not limited to, the
following: 9/12/2021, 10/24/2021, 11/24/2021 (two entries), 8/30/2022. ECF No. 50-1 at 5-22.
3
duties and/or administrative tasks in the same billing entry, makes it extremely difficult for
the Court to determine the actual amount of time counsel spent on attorney level work
compared to inappropriately billed tasks.
It is well established that block-billing is clearly disfavored in the Program. See
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 07-137V, 2008 WL 3903710 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Dec 15, 2006). Ultimately, several tasks lumped together with one-time entry
frustrates the court’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the request. In determining
the amount of reasonable hours, a special master has discretion to exclude hours
expended that are “’excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary’” based on his or
her experience or judgment.” Hocraffer v. Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011 WL
6292218, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2011). Additionally, The Vaccine Program’s Guidelines
for Practice state, “[e]ach task should have its own line entry indicating the amount of time
spent on that task.” 5
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 and block-
billing issues mentioned. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of
fees to be awarded by $1,484.36. 6
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.
ECF No. 50-1 at 23-39. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts
sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
5 The Guidelines for Practice can be found at the link below.
Please refer to page 76:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program
6
This amount is calculated as follows: $29,687.38 x 0.05 = $1,484.36.
4
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 $29,026.10 (representing $28,203.02 in fees plus $823.08 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. 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
5