Weikert v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1013V

KEVIN WEIKERT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 15, 2025

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On July 2, 2024, Kevin Weikert 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as the result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccination received on May 31, 2023. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 6, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 25.

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 inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences 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 $17,108.10 (representing $16,631.60 in fees plus $476.50 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 30, 2025, ECF No. 29. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 29 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. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 31. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. Petitioner has requested that I apply the hourly rate of $475.00 for 2025 work performed by attorney Maximillian Muller, representing a rate increase of $25 from the previous year and the hourly rate of $180.00 for his supporting paralegal. I find these rate reasonable and shall be adopted. And all time billed to the matter was reasonably incurred. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 29 at 14-17. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.

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. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $17,108.10 (representing $16,631.60 in fees plus $476.50 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. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

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