Maranto v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-0004V

LINDA MARANTO, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: December 16, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.

Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto 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 following a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on May 29, 2024. Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 28, 2025, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding the Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 25. On October 31, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 29.

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.

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 $32,173.01 (representing $30,167.50 in fees plus $2,005.51 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed November 6, 2025. ECF No. 33. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 33-3 at 2.

Respondent reacted to the motion on November 12, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case. Respondent notes that certain tasks that would typically be billed at a paralegal rate, were billed at an attorney rate. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 34. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a 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 I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein.

However, a few of the tasks performed by attorney Jimmy Zgheib in this matter are more properly billed using a paralegal rate. 3 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[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 reflect reasonably performed tasks, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $183.40. 4 ATTORNEY COSTS Petitioner requests $2,005.51 in overall costs. ECF No. 33-2 at 2-35. Such costs reflect the expenses of obtaining medical records, mailing, and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed the requested costs but find that Petitioner’s counsel has not substantiated a few of the requested costs with the required documentation, such as an invoice or proof of payment. Before reimbursement of costs will be made, sufficient supporting documentation, such as invoices, receipts, and billing statements, must be provided. See

3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on medical records requests and drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR questionnaire, notice of filing, notice of intent, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. See billing entries dated: 12/17/2024, 1/3/2025, (3 entries), 3/7/2025, 11/3/2025. ECF No. 33-1 at 2-22.

4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($400.00 - $197.00 = $203.00 x 0.20 hrs.) + ($450.00 - $212.00 = $238.00 x .60 hrs.) = $183.40.

Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at 72- (emphasis added). 5 When Petitioners fail to provide appropriate documentation to substantiate a requested cost, special masters have refrained from awarding the relevant sum. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005). Accordingly, I will disallow reimbursement for all unsubstantiated costs herein. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $273.46. 6 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 $31,716.15 (representing $29,984.10 in fees plus $1,732.05 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. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

The guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program can be found at: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program This amount is calculated as follows:$100.15 (missing receipt from 3/20/2025) + $123.12 (missing receipt from 3/23/2025) + $50.19 (missing receipt from 10/28/2025) = $273.46.

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