Jackson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-0181V

CHRISTOPHER T. JACKSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 20, 2025

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Scott B. Taylor, Urban & Taylor, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On February 6, 2024, Christopher T. Jackson 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccination he received on October 24, 2022.

Petition, ECF No. 1. On March 26, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 27.

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 $29,245.07 (representing $28,251.00 in fees plus $994.07 in costs). Application for Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed May 30, 2025, ECF No. 32. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 33.

Respondent reacted to the motion on June 25, 2025, reporting 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. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 35. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a minor reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons 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.

ATTORNEY FEES a. Attorney Hourly Rates The hourly rates requested for all work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and shall be awarded. Petitioner has requested that I apply the hourly rate of $578.00 for 2025 work performed by attorney Scott B. Taylor, representing a rate increase of $40.00 from the previous year. In my experience, the request appears reasonable and shall be awarded.

b. Paralegal Tasks Billed at Attorney Rate I have identified several billing entries in which tasks that are considered paralegal in nature were improperly billed at attorney rates. 3 Counsel should note for future reference that, “[t]asks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” See Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-535, 2008 WL 5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec.

Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries are reasonable, they must be charged at non-attorney rates. I thus reduce the attorney’s rate for such tasks to $197.00 per hour. Application of the foregoing further reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $375.10. 4 Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.

ECF No. 32-5. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought.

I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.

Examples of tasks considered paralegal in nature are dated as follows: 2/2/24: “Draft PAR Questionnaire f orm.” 2/6/24 (two entries): “Identify all exhibits f or f iling with the Court; Draf t and review Certif icate of Service.” 2/7/24: “Draft PAR Questionnaire form.” See ECF No. 32-3, totaling 1.10 hours billed by attorney Scott.

This amount consists of reducing attorney Scott’s rate to $197.00 only f or those tasks considered paralegal in nature and is calculated as follows: ($538.00 - $197.00 = $341.00 x 1.10 hours) = $375.10.

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 $28,869.97 (representing $27,875.90 in fees plus $994.07 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. 5 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.