The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-83V
JING DING,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 30, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On January 17, 2025, Jing Ding 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 a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination
administered to her on August 17, 2023. Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 6, 2025, I issued
a ruling on entitlement finding the Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 15. On
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).
January 5, 2026, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the
Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 22.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $15,124.90 (representing $14,704.90 in fees plus $420.00 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed February 10, 2026, ECF No. 27. Furthermore,
counsel for Petitioner represents that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred.
ECF No. 27 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on February 11, 2026, 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.
Respondents’ Response to Motion at ECF No. 28. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates
requested for work performed through 2026 are reasonable and consistent with our prior
determinations and will therefore be awarded herein. And all time billed to the matter was
also reasonably incurred.
Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed
costs. ECF No. 27 at 12-13. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or
amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total
amount of $15,124.90 (representing $14,704.90 in fees plus $420.00 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. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
2