In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

MICHAEL MOSES, parent on *

behalf of P.M., a minor, *

* No. 19-739V 

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

v. *

* Filed: May 5, 2021

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Attorneys’ fees and costs, interim

Respondent. * award

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

Phyllis Widman, Jacobs and Barbone, Atlantic City, NJ, for petitioner; 

Catherine E. Stolar, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for 

respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING

ATTORNEYS’ COSTS ON AN INTERIM BASIS1

Previously, Michael Moses sought an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on 

an interim basis. Pet’r’s Mot., filed June 1, 2020. Mr. Moses was awarded most of 

his attorneys’ fees and costs. Mr. Moses was not awarded costs for work

performed by the expert he retained, Dr. Brawer, because Dr. Brawer did not 

describe his work in sufficient detail. Moses v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 19-739V, 2020 WL 6778002 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 23, 2020).2 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. This posting will make the decision available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to 

Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical 

information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions 

ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.

2 Familiarity with the October 23, 2020 decision and the standards for adjudications 

stated therein is presumed. 
2

Mr. Moses requested a second award of attorneys’ costs for reimbursement 

of work Dr. Brawer performed. Pet’r’s Mot., filed Jan. 18, 2021. The Secretary 

deferred to the undersigned’s determination. Resp’t’s Resp., filed Jan. 29, 2021. 

This motion is denied for two reasons. First, the previous decision awarding 

attorneys’ fees and costs reduced the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs at issue. 

Thus, petitioner has not justified why a second interim award is appropriate. See

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Second, petitioner has not offered any evidence to justify the proposed 

hourly rate for Dr. Brawer. Moreover, the undersigned has not heard Dr. Brawer 

testify. Because the quality of the expert’s work is a factor that should be 

considered when determining the appropriate rate, it is advantageous to have heard 

the expert witness’s testimony before making this determination when possible. 

See Schultz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-539V, 2019 WL 5098963, 

at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 28, 2019) (denying motion for reconsideration 

on this point); Jones v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-864V, 2019 WL 

5098965, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 26, 2019); Nifakos v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 14-236V, 2018 WL 7286553, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 

12, 2018) (deferring award when expert’s invoice is not detailed); Al-Uffi v. Sec’y

of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 6181669, at *14 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015) (noting that interim expert costs are more commonly 

awarded after a hearing). Thus, the costs associated with Dr. Brawer are deferred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master