The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-464V
THOMAS L. ALLEY,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 29, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato, Shannon Law Group, PC, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Eleanor Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On January 11, 2021, Thomas L. Alley filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration following an influenza vaccine he received on August 11, 2020. Petition,
ECF No. 1. On October 14, 2025, I issued a decision finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation and awarding damages, following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 42.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $56,312.20 (representing $55,530.40 in fees plus $781.80 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed November 11, 2025, ECF No. 47. Furthermore,
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.
Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses
were incurred. ECF No. 46.
Respondent reacted to the motion on November 12, 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. 48. Also, on November 12,
2025, Petitioner filed a reply requesting that the amount of fees and costs listed in
Petitioner’s motion be awarded. ECF No. 49.
Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in
connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the
reasons 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
& 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
The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and
consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be awarded herein.
Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to
briefing entitlement and damages to be excessive. See Petitioner’s Response to Rule 4C
Report, Motion for Ruling on the Record, and Damages Brief, filed Dec. 7, 2023, ECF No.
33; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion, filed March 4,
2024, ECF No. 37; Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 19.6 hours drafting the
entitlement and damages brief and 18.4 hours drafting the responsive brief, for a
combined total of 38 hours. ECF No. 47-2 at 4-7.
My above calculation does not include time spent communicating with Petitioner
and preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or signed
declarations, which is being awarded in full. See, e.g., id. At 4-20 (entries dated
11/23/2020, 10/5/2021, 10/9/2023, 10/10/2023, 10/11/2023, 3/1/2024, 3/4/2024).
Given that briefing was required for both entitlement and damages in this case, I
would expect Petitioner’s counsel to expend additional time to finalize any briefing.
However, the time billed in this case still exceeds what that total would be.2
2 See, e.g., Baskin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2207V (Dec. 1, 2025) (6.0 and 5.5 hours billed
for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively);
Beall v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0496V (Nov. 12, 2025) (11.6 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting
an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Creedon
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0309V (June 18, 2025) (8.9 and 6.0 hours billed for drafting an
entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Krebs v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0484V (June 13, 2025) (14.5 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting an entitlement
and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Field v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 20-1958V (June 1, 2025) (9.5 and 4.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages
brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Shield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-1970V (Jan. 27, 2025) (19.3 and 2.9 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Vaccaro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
20-1704V (Jan. 27, 2025) (8.6 and 4.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Schwalm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-0066V (Dec. 2, 2024) (12.2 and 6.9 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Leach v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
0108V (Nov. 25, 2024) (13.1 and 7.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Stanton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
0360V (Nov. 25, 2024) (15.9 and 4.5 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Hirsch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
3
Thus, I find that a reduction of twenty percent is warranted. Accordingly, I will
reduce the sum to be awarded for entitlement and damages briefing (a total of 38 hours,
or $18,659.60) by twenty percent. 3 Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am
empowered to adopt) 4 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without
requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant” in identifying with specificity each
objectionable task relevant to this one sub-area of work performed on the case. This
results in a reduction of $3,731.92. 5
In addition, a few of the tasks performed by attorney Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato in
this matter are more properly billed using a paralegal rate. 6 “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
1110V (Nov. 25, 2024) (16.0 and 4.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Templin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-1446V (Nov. 25, 2024) (12.0 and 0.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively) Kleinschmidt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-0680V (Apr. 9, 2024) (13.9 and 4.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Amor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
0978V (Apr. 10, 2024) (11.9 and 2.7 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); McGraw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-0072V (Apr. 1, 2024) (17.4 and 9.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Wilson-Blount v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-1400V (Oct. 25, 2023) (14.2 and 7.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Bidlack v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
0093V (Oct. 25, 2023) (9.4 and 6.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively. These decisions can (or will) be found on the
United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc.
3 Because the amount of excessive hours was not as egregious as in other cases, I will reduce the hours
billed by a lower amount than I otherwise would apply. See, e.g., Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-1363V, 2025 WL 2614093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2025) (applying a 30 percent reduction).
4 Special masters are permitted to employ percentage reductions to hours billed, provided the reduction is
sufficiently explained. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107, 111 (2017);
Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 702-704 (2016); Sabella v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 214 (2009).
5 This amount is calculated as follows: (19.6 hrs. x $477.00 + 18.4 hrs. x $506.00 x .20) = $3,731.92.
6
Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on
medical records requests, 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. See billing
entries dated: 11/10/2020 (two entries), 11/23/2020, 7/26/2021, 10/4/2021, 10/5/2021, 10/30/2025,
11/4/2025, 11/9/2025. ECF No. 47-2 at 2-21.
4
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. This
results in a reduction of $652.80. 7
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No.
47-4 at 1-8. 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 $51,927.48 (representing $51,145.68 in fees plus $781.80 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. 8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7
This amount is calculated as follows: ($415.00 - $163.00 = $252.00 x .8 hrs.) + ($440.00 - $172 =
$268.00 x .9 hrs.) + ($562.00 - $212.00 = $350.00 x .6 hrs.) = $652.80.
8 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