The opinion
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1371V
BRYAN ODEN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 29, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Kirk Tripp Otto, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On September 4, 2024, Bryan Oden 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 alleges that he suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration - as a result of the administration of an influenza vaccine on
September 22, 2023. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed February 13, 2026, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. On
February 20, 2026, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the
parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 31.
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 $15,738.24 (representing $14,500.70 in fees plus $1,237.54 in costs). Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed March 27, 2026, ECF No. 36. Furthermore,
counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 36-4.
Respondent reacted to the Motion on April 8, 2026, stating that he is satisfied the
statutory requirements for an award of fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring
resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response at 2-4, ECF No. 37.
Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests 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 & 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
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for attorney Kirk Otto: $403.00 for all
work performed in 2025, and the rate of $495.00 for all work performed in 2026. ECF No.
36-3 at 5. Additionally, for attorney John Beaulieu, Petitioner requests the rate of $360.00
per hour for work performed in 2025, and $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2026.
And for attorney Rachel Brown, the rate of $360.00 for 2026 is requested. Id.
The requested rate for Mr. Otto for 2025 has previously been awarded, and shall
be applied in this matter, but the 2026 rate requires adjustment. Mr. Otto was recently
awarded the lesser sum of $450.00 per hour for time billed in 2026. See Hughes v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1917V, 2026 WL 2111394. (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jun.
23, 2026). I find no reason to deviate from that determination, and it otherwise is not the
practice of OSM to adjust prior rate determinations upward in later cases. See Jefferson
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1882, 2023 WL 387051 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 9, 2023). Accordingly, I reduce the rates to be consistent with Sukhraj. Application
of the foregoing reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $72.00. 3
The requested rate for Mr. Beaulieu for 2025 has previously been awarded and
shall be awarded herein. But for 2026 time, Mr. Beaulieu was previously awarded $425.00
per hour. See Sukhraj v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-2176V, slip. op. (Fed. Cl.
May 19, 2026). I will follow that determination. Accordingly, I reduce the rates to be
consistent with Sukhraj, resulting in a reduction of $10.00. 4
The requested rates for Ms. Brown are reasonable and shall be awarded in full.
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No.
36-2 at 7-16 and 36-3 at 7. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or
amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
3
This amount is calculated as follows: $495 - $450 = $45 x 1.60 hrs = $72.00.
4 This amount is calculated as follows: $450 - $425 = $25 x 0.40 hrs = $10.00.
3
CONCLUSION
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 $15,656.24 (representing $14,418.70 for attorneys’ fees and $1,237.54 for
attorneys’ 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.
4