# Westbrook v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

> United States Court of Federal Claims · March 4, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11271660

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** March 4, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/11271660

## Opinion text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-568V

LYNNETTE WESTBROOK,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 30, 2026

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

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

Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On May 24, 2022, Lynnette Westbrook 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 Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 16, 2019. Petition at
1. On September 8, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation. ECF No. 18. On July 7, 2025, I issued a decision awarding
damages to Petitioner following briefing and expedited Motions Day arguments by the
parties. ECF
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).
No. 48.

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $50,407.15 (representing $43,828.00 for fees and $6,579.15 for costs). Petitioner’s
Application for Fees and Costs filed August 17, 2025, ECF No. 55. Furthermore,
Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses
were incurred. ECF No. 55 at 2.

Respondent reacted to the motion on September 18, 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. 56. On September 19, 2025,
Petitioner filed a reply requesting that the amount of fees and costs listed in Petitioner’s
motion be awarded. ECF No. 57.

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
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.
2
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 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 on damages to be excessive – although not as egregiously so. See Petitioner’s
Brief on Damages, filed Dec. 19, 2024, ECF No. 41; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s
Response to Brief on Damages, filed April 21, 2025, ECF No. 44. Petitioner’s counsel
expended approximately 17.5 hours drafting the damages briefing and 8.7 hours drafting
the reply, totaling 26.2 3 hours. ECF No. 55-1 at 10-11.

My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand
which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated
with that task in full. ECF No. 55-1 at 7. 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 10 (entry dated
12/13/2024).

It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the matter of
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 this matter), 4 in
which attorneys have accomplished this task more efficiently. 5

3 This total is calculated as follows: 17.5 hours billed on 10/10/2024, 12/16/2024, 12/19/2024, by attorney

Elizabeth Vitt at a rate of $430.00, and 8.7 hours billed on 3/20/2025, 4/7/2025, 4/21/2025 by attorney
Elizabeth Vitt at a rate of $460.00. ECF 55-1 at 10-11.
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., Staffaroni v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1951V (Nov. 2, 2023) (19.2 and 5.4 hours

billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Granville v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V (Oct. 25, 2023) (16.4 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and
responsive damages brief, respectively); Schenck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1768V (Oct.
3
Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate.
ECF No. 48. But the Act permits only an award of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for damages briefing (a total of 26.2
hours, or $11,527.00) by ten percent. 6 Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am
empowered to adopt) 7 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without
requiring me to act as a “green eye-shade 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 $1,152.70. 8

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.
ECF No. 55-2 at 2-20. 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. I award a total of $49,254.45 (representing
$42,675.30 for fees and $6,579.15 for costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to

20, 2023) (8.0 and 3.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively);
Weil v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0831V (Oct. 20, 2023) (14.5 and 1.5 hours billed for drafting
a damages brief and reviewing Respondent’s responsive damages brief, respectively); Hernandez v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1572V (July 21, 2023) (14.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief);
Miles v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0146V (July 20, 2023) (16.4 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting
a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Merchant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-0450V (July 12, 2023) (15.5 and 2.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive
damages brief, respectively); Elenteny v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1972V (May 31, 2023)
(16.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Miller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1559V (May
30, 2023) (17.5 and 4.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive 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.

6 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., Havis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-0583V, 2025 WL 2538903 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2025) (applying a 30 percent reduction).
7 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).

8 This amount is calculated as follows: (17.5 hrs. x $430.00 + 8.7 x $460.00 x .10) = $1,152.70.

4
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. 9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

9 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11271660. Public record. Not legal advice.