# Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

> United States Court of Federal Claims · April 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309910

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** April 13, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Nora Beth Dorsey
- **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/11309910

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that services that are “primarily of a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates”

## Opinion text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 17, 2026

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JONNIE BROWN, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 22-80V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 27, 2022, Jonnie Brown (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine
Injury Program 2 alleging that she suffered Bell’s palsy as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
she received on September 20, 2020. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). On May 16, 2025, the
undersigned issued a Decision Based on Stipulation. Decision Based on Stipulation dated May
16, 2025 (ECF No. 81).

1
Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned is required to post it 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, the undersigned agrees that the
identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access.
2
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this Decision
to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.

1
On October 21, 2025, Petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs and a
statement of Petitioner’s personal costs. Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
(“Pet. App.”), filed Oct. 21, 2025 (ECF No. 86); Petitioner’s Statement of Personal Costs (“Pet.
Costs”), filed Oct. 21, 2025 (ECF No. 87). Petitioner requests compensation in the amount of
$54,650.57, representing $38,150.50 in attorneys’ fees and $16,500.07 in costs. Id. at 2.
Petitioner also requests $27.44 in personally incurred costs. Id. Respondent filed his response
on October 30, 2025, stating he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’
fees and costs are met in this case.” Respondent’s Response to Pet. App., filed Oct. 30, 2025, at
2 (ECF No. 88). Petitioner did not file a reply. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS Petitioner’s motion and
awards a total of $54,678.01.

I. DISCUSSION

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. § 15(e)(1). When
compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and
there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. In this case,
because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to a
final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

A. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515
F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an
initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward
departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at
1348.

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).

2
A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of a petitioner’s fee
application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl.
719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its
attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991), rev’d on other grounds & aff’d in
relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior
experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests . . .
[v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee
applications.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521.

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Ms.
Christina Ciampolillo, $380.00 per hour for work performed in 2020 and 2021, $425.00 per hour
for work performed in 2022, $470.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $500.00 per hour for
work performed in 2024, and $537.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; for Ms. Meredith
Daniels, $516.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; for Mr. Ronald Homer, $475.00 per hour
for work performed in 2022, $500.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $525.00 per hour for
work performed in 2024, and $567.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; for Mr. Patrick
Kelly, $305.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $345.00 per hour for work performed in
2024, and $380.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; for Mr. Joseph Pepper, $455.00 per
hour for work performed in 2023; for Ms. Lauren Faga, $385.00 per hour for work performed in
2022; and for Mr. Nathaniel Enos, $320.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $360.00 per
hour for work performed in 2024, and $390.00 per hour for work performed in 2025. Petitioner
also requests rates between $55.00 and $207.00 for work of her counsel’s paralegals and law
clerks performed from 2020 to 2025.

The undersigned finds the rates are consistent with what counsel have previously been
awarded for their Vaccine Program work and reasonable herein.

ii. Reasonable Hours Expended

In reducing an award of fees, the goal is to achieve rough justice, and therefore a special
master may take into account their overall sense of a case and may use estimates when reducing
an award. See Florence v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-255V, 2016 WL 6459592, at
*5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011)). It is well
established that an application for fees and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time
billed so that a special master may determine, from the application and the case file, whether the
amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760
(1989); Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009). Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and costs
claimed. Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468 at *8.

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds the total number of
hours billed to be reasonable and will award fees in full. However, the undersigned has concerns
related to counsel’s billing entries.

3
First, the undersigned notes there is time billed for non-compensable administrative tasks
(e.g., preparing, paginating, and filing exhibits; preparing mailing of documents; and preparing
documents for and payments to expert). 3 It is well known in the Vaccine Program that billing for
some administrative tasks, even at a paralegal rate, is not permitted. See, e.g., Rochester v.
United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (stating that services that are “primarily of a secretarial
or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the
attorneys’ fee rates”); Paul v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1221V, 2023 WL
1956423, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 13, 2023) (“Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be
billed at all, regardless of who performs them.”). The preparation of records and exhibits for
filing has repeatedly been deemed administrative and thus noncompensable. See, e.g., Wallace
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1074V, 2018 WL 6977489, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov. 19, 2018) (noting the preparation of medical records an administrative and noncompensable
task); Phelan ex rel. A.P. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1366V, 2025 WL 1453777,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 30, 2025) (same). Filing exhibits are also considered
administrative tasks. See, e.g., Wakileh v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1136V, 2023
WL 9228198, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 18, 2023).

Second, there are instances of duplicative billing for intra-office meetings 4 which is
“[u]nreasonably duplicative” and “excessive.” Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 129
Fed. Cl. 691, 703 (2016) (reducing fee for “[u]nreasonably duplicative or excessive billing,”
which includes “attorneys billing excessively for intra office communications”).

3
For example, see entries dated January 27, 2022 (“fwd [petition] to . . . [paralegal] for filing”
and “filed [petition] electronically”); February 11, 2022 (“prepare certified mail”); March 25,
2022 (“organize records . . . and prepare/paginate medical records . . . for . . . electronic filing”);
June 28, 2022 (“ensure file size appropriate for ECF filing” and “filed pleadings and exhibits
electronically”); July 22, 2022 (“prepare certified mail”); September 1, 2022 (“filed pleadings
and exhibits electronically”); September 21, 2022 (“review . . . file size” and “filed pleadings and
exhibit electronically”); October 28, 2022 (“review . . . file size limitations” and “filed pleadings
and exhibit electronically”); November 3, 2022 (“review . . . file size limitations” and “filed
pleadings and exhibit electronically”); July 20, 2023 (“prepare electronic copy for case materials
for medical expert”); July 26, 2023 (“overnight shipment to expert with case materials, retainer[,]
and cover letter from [attorney]”); February 16, 2024 (“review and process payment of expert
invoice, send payment via FedEx”); May 8, 2025 (“Prepare overnight shipment to DOJ”). This is
not an exhaustive list.
4
For example, see entries dated November 12, 2021; January 12, 2022; February 18, 2022; April
29, 2022; May 20, 2022; June 21, 2022; June 28, 2022; August 2, 2022; September 23, 2022;
October 26, 2022; April 27, 2023; June 22, 2023. This is not an exhaustive list.

4
And third, numerous billing entries from attorneys advise or direct paralegals to complete
tasks (e.g., filing), 5 while said paralegals were billing for such tasks. See, e.g., Vinocur v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-598V, 2020 WL 3619896, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 29,
2020) (“In the undersigned’s experience, the time it would take an experienced attorney to direct
an experienced paralegal to file a certain document (particularly pro forma documents drafted by
the paralegal) is so negligible that it should not be billed for at all.”); O’Leary v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 18-584V, 2022 WL 1055352, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 21, 2022)
(reducing fees for “attorney time directing paralegals to file documents”); Buchanan v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1649V, 2022 WL 9931077, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 23,
2022) (same); Foster v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1502V, 2020 WL 3619919, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 23, 2020) (reducing fees “for excessive time billed by counsel to
direct paralegal activity”).

The undersigned will not deduct Petitioner’s fees request for these billing issues because
she finds the overall amount requested reasonable. However, counsel is again warned against
such billing practices in the future. See, e.g., Wallace v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
1623V, 2025 WL 3083288, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 7, 2025). Lastly, counsel is put on
notice that the undersigned will deduct for these issues in the future.

B. Attorneys’ Costs

Petitioner requests a total of $16,500.07 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of
the filing fee, acquiring medical records, FedEx and other shipping costs, and expert costs. The
undersigned has reviewed the requested costs and finds them to be reasonable and supported with
appropriate documentation. Accordingly, the full amount of costs shall be awarded.

C. Petitioner’s Costs

Petitioner requests a total of $27.44 in Petitioner’s personal costs. This amount is
comprised of postage and medical records. The undersigned has reviewed the requested costs
and finds them to be reasonable and supported with appropriate documentation. Accordingly,
the full amount of costs shall be awarded.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate
Petitioner and her counsel as follows:

5
For example, on October 31, 2022, Ms. Ciampolilo billed for “memo to [paralegal] re
prepping/filing,” and the next day, November 1, 2022, the paralegal billed for “filing of PAR
questionnaire, and drafting/filing of statement of completion.” Pet. Mot., Tab A at 14. Then,
two days later, the paralegal again billed for “PAR questionnaire, filed electronically, copy of
pleading saved to case file,” though only half the time was billed. Id. Another example is from
March 6, 2023, when Ms. Ciampolilo billed for “conf[erence] with [paralegal] re prepping/filing
[statement of completion]” and the paralegal billing for “filed [statement of completion]
electronically following attorney review.” Id. at 15. This continued throughout litigation.

5
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $38,150.50
(Total Reduction from Billing Hours) -$0.00
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $38,150.50

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $16,500.07
(Reduction of Costs) -$0.00
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $16,500.07

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $54,650.57

Petitioner’s Costs Requested $27.44
(Reduction of Costs) -$0.00
Total Petitioner’s Costs Awarded $27.44

Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $54,678.01
(representing $54,650.57 for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs and $27.44 for
Petitioner’s personally incurred costs), to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of
Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision. 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master

6
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing
of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

6

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309910. Public record. Not legal advice.