In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0039V 

(not to be published)

SAUM ESHRAGHI,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 24, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On January 7, 2019, Saum Eshraghi 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 alleges a Table claim for a shoulder injury related to vaccination

or in the alternative, a cause-in-fact claim of SIRVA caused by a Tdap vaccine that he 

received on November 1, 2016. (Petition at 1). On September 23, 2021, a decision was

issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 

45).

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated February 15, 

2022, (ECF No. 50), requesting a total award of $16,611.72 (representing $15,511.70 in 

fees and $1,100.02 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for 

Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (Id. at 2). 

Respondent reacted to the motion on February 15, 2022, 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 at the Court’s discretion. (ECF No. 

51). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. 

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my 

experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested 

hours or rates. 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section

15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I 

award a total of $16,611.72 (representing $15,511.70 in fees and $1,100.02 in costs) as 

a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the 

Court), the Clerk 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.