# Paltrowitz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services > United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11328641 ## Case - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** May 18, 2026 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Brian H. Corcoran - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment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/11328641 ## Opinion text In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1283V HARRIS PALTROWITZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 14, 2026 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Christopher Williams, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner. Madylan Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On August 10, 2023, Harris Paltrowitz 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine he received on October 24, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On April 3, 2025, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 36. On June 18, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 41. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $54,153.47 (representing $52,528.80 in fees plus $1,624.67 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed August 22, 2025, ECF No. 46. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 46-4 at 1. Respondent reacted to the motion on September 5, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case. However, Respondent suggests that attorney Kathleen Prlich’s requested rates are unsupported, noting that her resume reflects less than eight years practicing law. Response at 2, 4-5. ECF No. 47. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason listed below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. 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 A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of petitioner's attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorneys’ fees to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys’ fees based upon the attorneys’ experience. McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s Motion. Ms. Prlich was previously awarded $470.00 per hour for attorney work performed in 2023, and $480.00 per hour for attorney work performed in 2024. Helm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1896V, 2025 WL 2855391, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 5, 2025). While Respondent suggests that Ms. Prlich’s requested rates are unsupported, I note that his Response to the fee Motion does not advance a specific argument against Ms. Prlich’s requested rates. Rather, Respondent recites her employment history and observes that her total time practicing law is less than eight years. See Response at 4-5. Respondent’s recitation of Ms. Prlich’s employment history, without more, does not constitute a basis for deviating from rates already awarded to her in prior proceedings. Those rates reflect prior consideration of all of Ms. Prlich’s qualifications. I note that Respondent did not object to Ms. Prlich’s requested rates in prior proceedings and offers no basis for me to depart from what other special masters have found to be reasonable. 3 See Helm, 2025 WL 2855391; see also Hasanovic v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-1828V, 2025 WL 1453776 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mastr. Mar. 13, 2025). Accordingly, the rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein. However, some of the tasks performed by attorneys Kathleen Prlich and Christopher Williams in this matter are more properly billed using a paralegal rate. 3 “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 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. In evaluating a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, special masters “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011). Instead, in appropriate circumstances they may make reasonable, across-the-board percentage adjustments. Here, such an overall percentage cut is reasonable, and preferrable to a time- consuming line-by-line review of the bill. I therefore reduce the total fees to be awarded herein by five percent as a fair adjustment to account for the paralegal duties issue mentioned. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of fees to be awarded by $2,626.44. 4 3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on medical records requests, and 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. Entries that include paralegal tasks billed at an attorney rate include the following: 1/26/2024, 2/1/2024, 3/1/2024, 3/4/2024, 3/26/2024, 4/5/2024, 4/8/2024, 4/10/2024, 4/12/2024, 4/18/2024, 4/19/2024, 4/23/2024, 5/14/2024, 5/31/2024, 8/2/204, 7/10/2025, 7/11/2025. This is not an exhaustive list. ECF No. 46-2 at 1-47. 4 This amount is calculated as follows: $52,528.80 x 0.05 = $2,626.44. 4 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 46-3 at 1-15. 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 $51,527.03 (representing $49,902.36 in fees plus $1,624.67 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. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 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/11328641. Public record. Not legal advice.