United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Beckmann v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 9, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1289V

BARBARA BECKMANN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 30, 2025

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

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

Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann 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”). Petition at 1. On November 4, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner, following briefing and expedited Motions Day argument by the parties. ECF No. 35.

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.

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 $51,429.49 (representing $50,375.00 for fees and $1,054.49 for costs). Petitioner’s Motion for Fees and Costs filed Apr. 24, 2025, ECF No. 42. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of- pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent has not filed a response. And Petitioner did not file a reply.

Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in connection, I find reductions 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. 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.

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 Most rates requested for work performed by all attorneys and supporting paralegals through the end of 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. However, the proposed rate of $550.00 for 2025 time billed by Leah Durant requires further evaluation and adjustment.

Attorney Leah 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 (June 24, 2025).3 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 $70.00.4 Regarding the number of hours billed, I deem the total amount of time devoted to briefing damages to be excessive – although not egregiously so. See Status Report, filed Apr. 5, 2024, ECF No. 26 (reporting an impasse in the parties’ damages discussions); Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Damages, filed June 4, 2024, ECF No. 30; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record Regarding Damages, Aug. 12, 2024, ECF No. 32; Minute Entry, dated Nov.

4, 2024 (for expedited hearing on October 25, 2024). Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 16.8 hours drafting the damages brief and 15.3 hours drafting a reply, totaling 32.15 hours. ECF No. 42-1 at 7-9.

My above calculation does not include time spent preparing the initial demand which would have informed this later work, and I am therefore awarding fees associated with that task in full. ECF No. 42-1 at 5-6. Nor am I counting time spent communicating with Petitioner and preparing additional supporting documentation such as affidavits or

3 This decision can be found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited July 29, 2025). 4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($550.00 - $530.00) x 3.50 hours billed = $70.00 in fees to be reduced. ECF No. 42-1 at 10 (entry dated 3/10/25). 5 This total is calculated as follows: 32.1 hours billed on 5/8/24, 5/14/24, 6/4/24, 7/5/24, 7/18/24, 7/19/24, and 8/12/24, by Richard Amada at a rate of $463. ECF No. 42-1 at 7-9. signed declarations, which is also being awarded in full. See, e.g., id. at 8 (entry dated 6/5/24).

It is unreasonable for counsel to spend so much time briefing the issue of damages in this case, where the issues presented are not complex. I have identified numerous cases (which may reasonably be compared to time spent in this matter), 6 in which attorneys have accomplished this task in about half the time.7 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).

7 See, e.g., Lang v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0972V (June 26, 2025) (12.3 and 7.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); McClelland v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-0605V (June 24, 2025) (9.7 and 11.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Blanco v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0559V (June 16, 2025) (4.2 and 8.0 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Moreno v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0433V (June 13, 2025) (7.3 and 4.0 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Boyd v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0850V (June 13, 2025) (13.3 and 10.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Perez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0746V (June 12, 2025) (13.4 and 5.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Cohen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1060V (June 11, 2025) (8.5 and 4.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1348V (January 30, 2025) (9.7 and 5.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Phillips v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0076V (January 10, 2025) (9.0 and 10.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Wirges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1670V (Dec. 27, 2024) (16.8 and 7.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Tracy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1312V (Dec. 27, 2024) (12.5 and 5.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Tappendorf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1592V (Dec. 27, 2024) (14.1and 7.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Stolze v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0964V (Nov. 22, 2024) (11.8 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Davidson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 1617V (Nov. 22, 2024) (14.9 and 3.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); M.F. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0970V (Nov. Apr. 9, 2024) (13 and 7.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Axelrod v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0980V (Mar. 29, 2024) (11.9 and 12.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Benz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1197V (Mar. 26, 2024) (19.5 and 6.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Hansler-Point v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0045V (Mar. 26, 2024) (9.6 and 4.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Dulaney v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1488V (Mar. 26, 2024) (6.6 and 0.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Glanville v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1973V (Mar. 26, 2024) (8.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Stokes v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0752V (Feb. 29, 2024) (15.3 and 8.1 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Richardson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0674V (Feb. 9, 2024) (9.2 and 6.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Edwards v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0056V (Feb. 5, 2024) (11.3 and 7.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Villa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 0569V (Feb. 5, 2024) (6.0 and 5.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Jackson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0051V (Feb. 5, 2024) (15.4 and 7.7 hours Of course, having prevailed in this case, a fees award is generally appropriate.

Beckmann v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1289V, 2024 WL 4986719 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 4, 2024) (also found at ECF No. 35). And I awarded past pain and suffering compensation ($115,000.00) that was closer to the amount proposed by Petitioner ($125,000.00 to $127,500.00), as opposed to $75,000.00 to 85,000.00 proposed by Respondent. Id. at *2-3. 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 entitlement damages briefing (a total of 32.1 hours, or $14,862.30), but only by ten percent. Such an across-the-board reduction (which I am empowered to adopt)8 fairly captures the overbilling evidenced by this work, without requiring me to act as a “green eye-shaded accountant” in identifying with specificity each objectionable task relevant to this one sub- area of work performed on the case. This results in a reduction of $1,486.23.9 billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Mulloy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1396V (Nov. 6, 2023) (19.7 and 9.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Gao v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1884V (Oct. 25, 2023) (16.5 and 9.4 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Knasel v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1366V (Oct. 25, 2023) (11.5 and 13.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Langdon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Servs., No. 20-1311V (Oct. 25, 2023) (12.5 and 12.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Mantagas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1720V (Oct.

17, 2023) (6.7 and 4.2 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Majerus v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1346V (Oct. 17, 2023) (11.0 and 4.6 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Cosden v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Servs., No. 20-1783 (Aug. 8, 2023) (6.3 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Balch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0872V (June 30, 2023) (18.7 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Kestner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0025V (June 22, 2023) (6.00 and 4.10 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Juno v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0643V (June 14, 2023) (5.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Deutsch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0527V (June 12, 2023) (7.4 and 4.4 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Edminister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0184V (May 30, 2023) (15.3 and 3.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Aponte v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1031V (May 18, 2023) (6.9 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Gray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1708V (May 18, 2023) (5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Horky v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0239V (May 18, 2023) (5.8 hours billed for drafting a damages brief); Thomson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0234V (May 18, 2023) (9.5 and 2.5 hours billed for drafting a damages brief and responsive damages brief, respectively); Rice-Hansen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1338V (May 17, 2023) (12.9 and 6.1 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 (last visited August 4, 2024).

8 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). 9 This amount is calculated as follows: 32.1 hrs. x $463 x .10 = $1,486.23.

ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 42-2. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought.

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. I award a total of $49,873.26 (representing $48,818.77 for fees and $1,054.49 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.10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

10 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.