In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: January 28, 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

BRADLEY ROBERT WILSON, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * No. 19-554V

* Special Master Gowen

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Hsien C. Chang, McGehee, Chang, Barnes, Landgraf, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Heather L. Pearlman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On September 23, 2020, Bradley Wilson (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 30). For the reasons 

discussed below, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and award a total of 

$19,573.44.

I. Procedural History

On April 15, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program.

2 Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on September 

27, 2018, he suffered transverse myelitis. See Petition (ECF No. 1). On September 17, 2020, the 

parties filed a stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on September 

1

I intend to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the Ruling 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. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 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).

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury 

Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (“Vaccine 

Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.
2

18, 2020. (ECF No. 26).

On September 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees. Petitioner 

requests compensation in the total amount of $23,448.44, representing $22,890.00 in attorneys’ 

fees and $558.44 in costs. Fees App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner warrants he 

has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of this claim. (ECF No. 29). Respondent reacted 

to the fees motion on September 24, 2020, stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory 

requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2. (ECF 

No. 31). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

The matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. Analysis

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the Special Master to award “reasonable 

attorneys' fees, and other costs.” § 300aa–15(e)(1)(A)–(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, 

even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible so long as the Special Master finds that the petition 

was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant 

to a stipulation, he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Petitioners “bea[r] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and 

the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 

484 (1993). Adequate proof of the claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is 

filed. Id. at 484 n. 1. The special master has the discretion to reduce awards sua sponte, independent 

of enumerated objections from the respondent. Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. 

Cl. 201, 208–09 (Fed. Cl. 2009); Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. 

Cl. 2008), aff'd No. 99–537V, 2008 WL 2066611 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2008).

a. Attorneys’ Fees

Petitioner requests that his attorney, Mr. H.C. Chang, be compensated at an hourly rate of 

$420.00 for all work performed in this case, from 2018 to 2020. This is Mr. Chang’s first Vaccine 

Program case and therefore a determination must be made as to a reasonable hourly rate. Because 

Mr. Chang practices law in Houston, Texas, he is entitled to forum rates.

Mr. Chang has been licensed to practice law since 2001, giving him approximately 17 years 

of experience when he commenced work on this matter in 2018 and placing him in the 11-19 years 

of experience tier pursuant to the OSM Fee Schedules.3In determining the factors to be considered 

in awarding reasonable forum rates, McCulloch, the seminal case on reasonable attorneys’ rates,

delineated the following factors:

1. The prevailing rate for comparable legal work in the forum of Washington 

D.C.;

3 The fee schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914.
3

2. the Prevailing Rate for Cases in the Vaccine Program;

3. The experience of the attorneys in the Vaccine Program;

4. The overall legal experience of the attorneys;

5. The quality of work performed in vaccine cases; and

6. Reputation in the legal community and community at large.

McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at * 17 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). Per the fee schedules, Mr. Chang’s requested rate exceeds the 

maximum rate for 2018 and 2019 and is almost the maximum rate for 2020 for an attorney with 

his experience. As previously mentioned, this is also Mr. Chang’s first Vaccine Program case and 

although he did a good job, a review of the billing records show some indication of this 

inexperience, billing for research that a more experienced attorney typically would not have to do. 

Upon review of Mr. Chang’s credentials and the McCulloch factors, I find the following 

rates to be reasonable: $360.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $370.00 per hour for work 

performed in 2019, and $380.00 per hour for work performed in 2020. Application of these rates 

results in a reduction of $2,795.00.4

Upon review of the billing entries, I find them to be largely reasonable. However, a small 

reduction must be made due to time billed by Mr. Chang to educate himself on basic aspects of 

the Vaccine Program, such as court procedure and whether petitioner’s vaccination was one that 

was covered by the program. “[I]t is inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves 

about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

14-1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). “An inexperienced 

attorney may not ethically bill his client to learn about an area of law in which he is unfamiliar. If 

an attorney may not bill his client for this task, the attorney may also not bill the Program for this 

task.” Carter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1500V, 2007 WL 2241877, at *5 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 13, 2007).

Upon review, a reasonable reduction for this time is $1,080.00, representing three hours of 

work in 2018. Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded final attorneys’ fees of $19,015.00.

b. Attorneys’ Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests total 

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $558.44, representing acquisition of medical records and the 

Court’s filing fee. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting all of the requested 

costs, and all appear reasonable in my experience. Petitioner is therefore entitled to the full amount 

of costs sought.

III. Conclusion

4 2018: ($420.00 per hour requested - $360.00 per hour awarded) * 23.7 hours billed = $1,422.00

2019: ($420.00 per hour requested - $370.00 per hour awarded) * 14.1 hours billed = $705.00

2020: ($420.00 per hour requested - $380.00 per hour awarded) * 16.7 hours billed = $668.00
4

In accordance with the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is 

GRANTED. I find that Petitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs as 

follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $22,890.00

(Reduction of Fees) - ($3,875.00)

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $19,015.00

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $558.44

(Reduction of Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $558.44

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $19,573.44

Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $19,573.44, representing 

reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner 

and his attorney, Mr. Hsien Chang.

5

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Thomas L. Gowen

 Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

5 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by 

the attorney against a client, “advanced costs,” and fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, Section 15(e)(3) 

prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded 

herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

6 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine 

Rule 11(a).