Meduski v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-193V

ADAM MEDUSKI, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 31, 2025

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Christopher Pinto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On February 8, 2024, Adam Meduski 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 a Table injury - shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, as a result of the administration of his April 25, 2023 pneumococcal conjugate-20 vaccination. Petition at 1. On February 28, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 22.

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 $27,615.08 (representing $25,681.50 in fees plus $1,933.58 in costs). Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed on April 18, 2025. ECF No. 28. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. Id. at 2.

Respondent did not file a response.

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 set forth 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.

ATTORNEY FEES The hourly rates requested by attorneys Leah Durant, Richard Amada, and their supporting paralegals through the end of 2024, are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted. For work performed by Mr. Amada in 2025, Petitioner is requesting the hourly rate of $495.00, representing an increase of $32.00 from the previous year. ECF No. 28-1 at 8-9. I find this 2025 rate is reasonable and within the OSM fee schedule for attorneys with Mr. Amada’s experience. Thus, I will award the requested 2025 rate. However, the rate of $550.00 for 2025 time billed by Ms. Durant require further evaluation and adjustment.

Attorney Durant was previously awarded the lesser rates of $530.00 for work performed in 2025. See Jackman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1749, Slip Op. 36 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 24, 2025). I find no reason to deviate from such reasoned 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. 19-1882V, 2023 WL 387051 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2023). Accordingly, I hereby reduce Ms. Durant’s rate for work performed in 2025 to be consistent with the aforementioned decision. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $100.00.3 ATTORNEY’S COSTS Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.

ECF No. 38-2. 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 $27,515.08 (representing $25,581.50 in fees plus $1,933.58 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a

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