Rice v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1704V

KIMBERLY RICE, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: June 29, 2026 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

John Beaulieu, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

On October 21, 2024, Kimberly Rice 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination she received on October 25, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On March 16, 2026, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 28.

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 $38,250.09 (representing $36,520.70 in fees plus $1,729.39 in costs). Petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed April 27, 2026, ECF No. 32. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-ofpocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 32-3.

Respondent did not file a response to the Motion.

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 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 & 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 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.

3

ATTORNEY FEES

The rates requested for attorney work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are therefore awarded herein. Attorney John Beaulieu’s rate for work performed in 2026 requires adjustment and is addressed below.

Mr. Beaulieu was previously awarded a lesser rate than requested herein ($425.00 for work performed in 2026). See Sukhraj v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23- 2176V, slip op. (Fed. Cl. May 19, 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 2026 rate to be consistent with Sukhraj. Application of the foregoing reduces the attorney fees to be awarded herein by $170.00. 3

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.

ECF No. 32-2 at 36-61. 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 $38,080.09 (representing $36,350.70 in fees plus $1,729.39 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

3 This amount consists of reducing John Beaulieu’s rate for 2026 and is calculated as follows: ($450.00 -

$425.00 = $25.00 x 6.8 hrs.) = $170.00. 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master