In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-478V
ARMANDO CIRELLO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 16, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On April 6, 2023, Armando Cirello 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 (“GBS”) following an influenza vaccination he received on January 17, 2022. Petition at 1. On December 14, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 18. On January 30, 2026, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 28.
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. 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 $38,831.41 (representing $35,414.90 for fees and $3,416.51 for costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed March 27, 2026, ECF No. 33. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing the no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 33 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on March 27, 2026, representing that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondents’ Response to Motion at ECF No. 34. On April 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondents’ response requesting that that the amount of fees and costs in the Motion be awarded. ECF No. 35.
Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find a reduction in the amount of attorney 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 & 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. 2 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
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 on damages to be excessive – although not as egregiously so. See Petitioner’s Brief on Damages, filed June 17, 2024, ECF No. 25; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondents’ Response to Brief on Damages, filed Sept. 18, 2024, ECF No. 27. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 17.2 hours drafting the damages brief and 10.0 hours drafting the reply, totaling 27.2 3 hours. ECF No. 33-1 at 7-8.
My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the demand which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated with that task in full. ECF No. 33-1 at 5 and 6. 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., id. at 7 (entry dated 6/11/2024).
It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the matter of damages in this case. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter), 4 in which attorneys have accomplished this task more efficiently. 5
3 This total is calculated as follows: 27.2 hours billed on 4/26/2024, 5/3/2024, 6/17/2024, 8/19/2024,
8/20/2024, and 9/18/2024 by attorney Richard Amada at a rate of $463.00.
4 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are
excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 5 See, e.g., Staffaroni v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1951V (Nov. 2, 2023) (19.2 and 5.4 hours
billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Granville v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V (Oct. 25, 2023) (16.4 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Schenck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1768V (Oct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-478V
ARMANDO CIRELLO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 16, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On April 6, 2023, Armando Cirello 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 (“GBS”) following an influenza vaccination he received on January 17, 2022. Petition at 1. On December 14, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 18. On January 30, 2026, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 28.
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. 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 $38,831.41 (representing $35,414.90 for fees and $3,416.51 for costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed March 27, 2026, ECF No. 33. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing the no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 33 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on March 27, 2026, representing that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondents’ Response to Motion at ECF No. 34. On April 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondents’ response requesting that that the amount of fees and costs in the Motion be awarded. ECF No. 35.
Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find a reduction in the amount of attorney 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 & 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. 2 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
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 on damages to be excessive – although not as egregiously so. See Petitioner’s Brief on Damages, filed June 17, 2024, ECF No. 25; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondents’ Response to Brief on Damages, filed Sept. 18, 2024, ECF No. 27. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 17.2 hours drafting the damages brief and 10.0 hours drafting the reply, totaling 27.2 3 hours. ECF No. 33-1 at 7-8.
My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the demand which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated with that task in full. ECF No. 33-1 at 5 and 6. 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., id. at 7 (entry dated 6/11/2024).
It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the matter of damages in this case. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter), 4 in which attorneys have accomplished this task more efficiently. 5
3 This total is calculated as follows: 27.2 hours billed on 4/26/2024, 5/3/2024, 6/17/2024, 8/19/2024,
8/20/2024, and 9/18/2024 by attorney Richard Amada at a rate of $463.00.
4 Special masters may use comparisons to attorneys performing similar tasks to determine if hours are
excessive. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1518-1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 5 See, e.g., Staffaroni v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1951V (Nov. 2, 2023) (19.2 and 5.4 hours
billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Granville v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2098V (Oct. 25, 2023) (16.4 and 6.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Schenck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1768V (Oct. 20, 2023) (8.0 and 3.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Weil v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0831V (Oct. 20, 2023) (14.5 and 1.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and reviewing Respondent’s responsive damages brief, respectively); Hernandez v. Sec’y 3 Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate, ECF No. 28. But the Act permits only an award of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, I will reduce the sum to be awarded for damages briefing (a total of 27.2 hours, or $12,593.60) by ten percent. 6 Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt) 7 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shade accountant” in identifying with specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub-area of work performed on the case. This reduces the amount of attorney fees to be awarded by $1,259.36. 8
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 33-2 at 2-19. 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. I award a total of $37,572.05 (representing $34,155.54 for fees and $3,416.51 for 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
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1572V (July 21, 2023) (14.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Miles v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0146V (July 20, 2023) (16.4 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Merchant v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0450V (July 12, 2023) (15.5 and 2.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Elenteny v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1972V (May 31, 2023) (16.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Miller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1559V (May 30, 2023) (17.5 and 4.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive 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.
6 Because the amount of excessive hours was not as egregious as in other cases, I will reduce the hours
billed by a lower amount than I otherwise would apply. See, e.g., Havis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0583V, 2025 WL 2538903 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2025) (applying a 30 percent reduction). 7 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).
8 This amount is calculated as follows: (27.2 hrs. x $463.00 = $12,593.60 x .10) = $1,259.36.
4 Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. 9
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
9 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