The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1264V
DAVID M. CODUTO,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 27, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On September 9, 2022, David M. Coduto filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration following an influenza vaccination he received on January 8, 2021.
Petition, ECF No. 1. On November 25, 2025, I issued a decision finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation and awarding damages, following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 56.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $57,133.30 (representing $56,163.30 in fees plus $970.00 in costs). Petition for
Reimbursement of Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed January 29, 2026, ECF No.
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.
61. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-
pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 61-3.
Respondent reacted to the motion on February 3, 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.
Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 63. On February 4, 2026,
Petitioner filed a reply requesting that the amount of fees and costs listed in Petitioner’s
motion be awarded. ECF No. 64.
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
& 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
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 entitlement and damages to be excessive. See Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on
the Record and Damages Determination, filed Aug. 12, 2024, ECF No. 52; Petitioner’s
Reply to Respondent’s Response to Motion for Ruling on the Record and Damages
Determination, filed Nov. 19, 2024, ECF No. 55; Petitioner’s counsel expended
approximately 34.8 hours drafting the entitlement and damages brief and 12.4 hours
drafting the responsive brief, for a combined total of 47.2 hours. ECF No. 61-1 at 12-14.
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. 61-1 at 10 and 11. 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 6/27/2022, 7/1/2022, 8/10/2024, 8/11/2024.
Given that briefing was required for both entitlement and damages in this case, I
would expect Petitioner’s counsel to expend additional time to finalize any briefing.
However, the time billed in this case still exceeds what that total would be. 2
2 See, e.g., Baskin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2207V (Dec. 1, 2025) (6.0 and 5.5 hours billed
for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively);
Beall v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0496V (Nov. 12, 2025) (11.6 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting
an entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Creedon
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0309V (June 18, 2025) (8.9 and 6.0 hours billed for drafting an
entitlement and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Krebs v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0484V (June 13, 2025) (14.5 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting an entitlement
and damages brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Field v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 20-1958V (June 1, 2025) (9.5 and 4.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages
brief and responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Shield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-1970V (Jan. 27, 2025) (19.3 and 2.9 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Vaccaro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
20-1704V (Jan. 27, 2025) (8.6 and 4.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Schwalm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-0066V (Dec. 2, 2024) (12.2 and 6.9 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Leach v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
0108V (Nov. 25, 2024) (13.1 and 7.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
3
Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for entitlement and damages
briefing (a total of 47.2 hours, or $22,420.00) by thirty percent. Such an across-the-board
reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)3 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by
this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded 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 $6.726.00. 4
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No.
61-2 at 2-36. 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 $50,407.30 (representing $49,437.30 in fees plus $970.00 in
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Stanton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
0360V (Nov. 25, 2024) (15.9 and 4.5 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Hirsch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
1110V (Nov. 25, 2024) (16.0 and 4.1 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Templin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-1446V (Nov. 25, 2024) (12.0 and 0.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively) Kleinschmidt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-0680V (Apr. 9, 2024) (13.9 and 4.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Amor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
0978V (Apr. 10, 2024) (11.9 and 2.7 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); McGraw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-0072V (Apr. 1, 2024) (17.4 and 9.6 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Wilson-Blount v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-1400V (Oct. 25, 2023) (14.2 and 7.4 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and damages brief, respectively); Bidlack v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
0093V (Oct. 25, 2023) (9.4 and 6.8 hours billed for drafting an entitlement and damages brief and
responsive entitlement and 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.
3 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).
4 This amount is calculated as follows: (47.2 hrs. x $475.00) x .30 = $6,726.00.
4
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