The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0368V
JEANNETTE CARDONA,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 6, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Elizabeth Ellis Simek, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On March 3, 2025, Jeannette Cardona 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on September 28,
2022. Petition at 1. On April 14, 2026, I issued a decision awarding compensation to
Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 31.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $83,604.23 (representing $80,811.00 in fees plus $2,793.23 in costs). Motion for
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).
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 12, 2026, ECF No. 37. Furthermore,
counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket
expenses. Id. at 3.
Respondent reacted to the Motion on June 15, 2026, indicating that he is satisfied
the statutory requirements for a fees award are met in this case, but deferring resolution
of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response at 2-4, ECF No. 38. Petitioner
did not file a reply.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a
reduction in the amount of attorney fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set
forth below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants (as here). 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
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates
requested for work performed through the end of 2025 are reasonable and consistent
with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted. Petitioner has also requested
the hourly rate of $578.00 for 2026 work performed by attorney Elizabeth Simek,
representing a rate increase of $48.00 from the previous year. I find the proposed
increase to be reasonable and award it herein.
However, several billed attorney tasks were 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.
In addition, I take into account the overall excessive amount of fees requested in
this matter. There are multiple instances of overbilling in this case. For example,
Petitioner’s counsel billed 7.1 hours to draft the motion for fees and costs,13.2 hours to
draft the demand, 22.20 hours to draft the Petition (14 pages), five hours preparing
exhibits, 24 hours review medical records, and 7.8 hours following up on medical records.
This does not include voluminous entries billed for communication back and forth with
Petitioner in order to complete the affidavit.
The claim was successfully settled within two years of filing, without a great deal
of litigious back-and-forth. SPU SIRVAs should generally not entail excessive amounts of
attorney time – and that goes double for a case that settles for well less than six figures
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: 06/18/2024; 03/12/2025; 09/05/2025;
03/20/2026; 03/17/2026; 04/07/2026.
ECF No. 37-2 at 31, 16, 12, 4, 3.
3
as here. Successful Vaccine Act practitioners are only entitled to reasonable fees, and it
is not reasonable to incur almost $80,000.00 in fees in a matter like this.
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 attorney fees to be awarded herein by ten percent as
a fair adjustment to account for the paralegal duties issue mentioned, as well as the total
unreasonable amount billed to the matter. Application of the foregoing reduces the
total amount of attorney fees to be awarded by $8,081.10. 4
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No.
37-4. 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 Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total
amount of $75,523.13 (representing $72,729.90 for attorneys’ fees and $2,793.23 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
4 This amount is calculated as follows: $80,811.00 x 0.10 = $8,081.10.
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