The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1906V
ROBERT HORNE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 7, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Madylan Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On October 27, 2023, Robert Horne 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 he suffered Guillain Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
following an influenza vaccination he received on October 26, 2022. Petition at 1. On
August 13, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation. ECF No. 27. On January 7, 2026, I issued a decision awarding damages
to Petitioner following briefing and expedited Motions Day arguments by the parties. ECF
No. 44.
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).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $60,230.76 (representing $56,171.70 for fees and $4,059.06 for costs). Petitioner’s
Application for Fees and Costs filed January 21, 2026, ECF No. 50. Furthermore,
Petitioner filed a signed statement representing the no personal out-of-pocket expenses
were incurred. ECF No. 50-3 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on February 3, 2026, 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 ECF No. 51. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
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.
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 2026 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. See Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages, filed
Dec. 5, 2024, ECF No. 35; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Brief in
Support of Damages, filed Feb. 12, 2025, ECF No. 37. Petitioner’s counsel expended
approximately 19.2 hours drafting the damages brief and 8.2 hours drafting the reply,
totaling 27.4 hours. ECF No. 50 at 22-24.
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. 50 at 18 and 21. 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., entries
dated 10/27/2023 (2 entries), 10/31/2023, 12/4/2024 (3 entries).
It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the matter of
damages in this case. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be
compared to time spent in this matter), 3 in which attorneys have accomplished this task
more efficiently. 4
3 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).
4 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.
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
3
Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate,
Horne v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 23-1906V, 2026 WL 395563 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Jan. 7, 2026) (also found at ECF No. 44). 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 27.4 hours, or $11,370.00) by ten percent. 5 Such
an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt) 6 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 $1,137.00. 7
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.
ECF No. 50-2 at 2-21. 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 $59,093.76 (representing
$55,034.70 for fees and $4,059.06 for 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
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.
5 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).
6 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).
7 This amount is calculated as follows: (19.2 hrs. x $400.00 + 8.2 hrs. x $450.00) x .10 = $1,137.00.
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.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5