CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-714V
TERRY BOYD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 23, 2025 v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On May 15, 2023, Terry Boyd 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 related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine he received on November 24, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 3, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to
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 following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 32.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $34,187.65 (representing $32,869.60 in fees plus $1,318.05 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 30, 2025, ECF No. 38. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 38 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on July 14, 2025, 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. 40. 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 reasons 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 2 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 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 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein.
However, the billing records reveal time billed on tasks considered administrative in nature.3 Billing at any professional rate for clerical and other administrative work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (noting that tasks “primarily of a secretarial and clerical nature ... should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.”). See also Floyd v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-556V, 2017 WL 1344623, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2017) (“[S]ome tasks performed by paralegals were clerical / secretarial in nature. Examples include scheduling status conferences...preparing compact discs...and filing documents through the CM/ECF system.”); Kerridge v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-852V, 2017 WL 4020523, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28, 2017) (noting that billing for “administrative tasks” ... are not compensated in the Vaccine Program); Silver v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1019V, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1058, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2018) (noting that “‘receiv[ing], review[ing,] and process[ing]’ records and court orders, and noting deadlines, are all clerical tasks.”). Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $223.30.
Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional separate briefing regarding damages. See Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages, filed Aug. 12, 2024, ECF No. 26; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Brief in Support of Damages, filed Oct. 22, 2024, ECF No. 28. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 15.1 hours drafting the damages brief and 4.0 hours drafting the responsive brief, for a combined total of 19.1 hours. ECF No. 38 at 12-13. I find this time to have been reasonably incurred.
3 ECF No. 38 at 5-14 (billing entries dated: 5/15/2023, 5/23/2023 (two entries), 6/15/2023 (two entries),
7/25/2023, 4/8/2024, 5/17/2024, 6/3/2024, 10/22/2024, 4/23/2025, 6/9/2025), totaling $223.30 in fees claimed for administrative tasks.
3 Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 38 at 16-22. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-714V
TERRY BOYD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 23, 2025 v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On May 15, 2023, Terry Boyd 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 related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine he received on November 24, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 3, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to
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 following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 32.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $34,187.65 (representing $32,869.60 in fees plus $1,318.05 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 30, 2025, ECF No. 38. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 38 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on July 14, 2025, 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. 40. 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 reasons 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 2 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 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 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein.
However, the billing records reveal time billed on tasks considered administrative in nature.3 Billing at any professional rate for clerical and other administrative work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (noting that tasks “primarily of a secretarial and clerical nature ... should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.”). See also Floyd v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-556V, 2017 WL 1344623, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2017) (“[S]ome tasks performed by paralegals were clerical / secretarial in nature. Examples include scheduling status conferences...preparing compact discs...and filing documents through the CM/ECF system.”); Kerridge v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-852V, 2017 WL 4020523, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28, 2017) (noting that billing for “administrative tasks” ... are not compensated in the Vaccine Program); Silver v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1019V, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1058, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2018) (noting that “‘receiv[ing], review[ing,] and process[ing]’ records and court orders, and noting deadlines, are all clerical tasks.”). Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $223.30.
Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional separate briefing regarding damages. See Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages, filed Aug. 12, 2024, ECF No. 26; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Brief in Support of Damages, filed Oct. 22, 2024, ECF No. 28. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 15.1 hours drafting the damages brief and 4.0 hours drafting the responsive brief, for a combined total of 19.1 hours. ECF No. 38 at 12-13. I find this time to have been reasonably incurred.
3 ECF No. 38 at 5-14 (billing entries dated: 5/15/2023, 5/23/2023 (two entries), 6/15/2023 (two entries),
7/25/2023, 4/8/2024, 5/17/2024, 6/3/2024, 10/22/2024, 4/23/2025, 6/9/2025), totaling $223.30 in fees claimed for administrative tasks.
3 Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 38 at 16-22. 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 $33,964.35 (representing $32,646.30 in fees plus $1,318.05 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
4 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