United States Court of Federal Claims, 2026

Keifrider v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided June 17, 2026 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1176V

DAVID KEIFRIDER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 15, 2026

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Joseph P. Shannon, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.

Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On August 1, 2024, David Keifrider 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination he received on November 9, 2023. Petition at 1. On September 2, 2025, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 24.

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. 2 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 $34,531.01 (representing $33,061.50 in fees plus $1,469.51 in costs). Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 19, 2025, ECF No. 28.

Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 28 at 2.

Respondent reacted to the motion on September 30, 2025, representing that he is satisfied that 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.

Respondent considers the amount requested by Petitioner to be excessive for a quickly settled non-surgical SIRVA case with minimal records and urges the Court to consider an overall percentage reduction. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 41. Petitioner indicated thereafter that he does not intend to file a substantive reply. ECF No. 29.

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 will therefore be awarded herein.

Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.

ECF No. 28-3 at 1-10. 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 in the total amount of $34,531.01 (representing $33,061.50 in fees plus $1,469.51 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

3 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.