In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-481V 

(not to be published)

MICHAEL B. JORDAN, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 5, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On April 1, 2019, Michael B. Jordan 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 that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of 

an influenza vaccine administered on August 14, 2017. (Petition at 1). On November 24, 

2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the 

Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 32). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).

Corrected
2

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated March 3, 

2021 (ECF No. 36), requesting a total award of $32,336.42 (representing $28,763.60 in 

fees and $3,572.82 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that he incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 36-3).

Respondent reacted to the motion on March 17, 2021, indicating that he is satisfied that 

the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, 

but defers resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. (ECF No. 17). 

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. 

ANALYSIS

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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.
3

ATTORNEY FEES

Petitioner requests compensation for attorney David Tierney at the following rates: 

$200 per hour for time billed in 2018; $215 per hour for time billed in 2019; $231 per hour 

for time billed in 2020; and $278 per hour for time billed in 2021. (ECF No. 36 at 3). The 

rates for 2018 - 2020 have been previously reviewed in other cases and deemed 

appropriate and shall be awarded in this matter as well. For 2021, the requested 

increased rate of $278 per hour is also reasonable. The increase brings Mr. Tierney to 

his appropriate range on the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Schedules.3

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner requests $3,572.82 in overall costs. (ECF No. 36 at 2). This amount is 

comprised of obtaining medical records, pacer fees and the Court’s filing fee. I have 

reviewed all of the requested costs and find them to be reasonable and shall award it in 

full. 

CONCLUSION

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 $32,336.42 (representing $28,763.60 in fees and $3,572.82 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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Mr. Tierney’s rate increase for from 2020 to 2021 represents an atypically-large dollar increase for a single 

year. This was necessary to bring Mr. Tierney’s rate into the appropriate range for attorneys with his 

experience. In the future, Mr. Tierney should not expect his hourly rate to be increased in the same manner.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.