In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Case No. 17-1617V)

JOYCE CARTER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Master Dorsey

Filed: May 11, 2020

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On October 27, 2017, Joyce Carter (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine

Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that she developed acute demyelinating 

encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) due to the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on February 25, 

2016. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). On November 18, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation for award, 

which the undersigned adopted as her Decision awarding compensation on November 19, 2020. 

Decision. (ECF No. 37).

On January 24, 2020, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 42). Petitioner requests compensation in the 

amount of $20,257.60, representing $15,262.50 in attorneys’ fees and $4,995.10 in costs. Fees 

App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that she has not personally 

incurred costs in pursuit of this litigation. Id. at 2. Respondent filed his response on January 9, 

2020 indicating that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees 

 

1 This decision will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). This means the Decision will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 44 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)B), however, the parties may 

object to the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, Under 

Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by 

that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) 

that includes medical filed or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise the whole decision will be available to the public in its 

current form. Id.
and costs are met in this case.” Response, (ECF No. 43 at 2). Petitioner did not file a reply. The 

matter is now ripe for disposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and 

awards a total of $20,257.60.

I. Discussion

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). 

When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith 

and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. at

§15(e)(1). In this case, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, 

she is entitled to a reasonable award of final attorneys’ fees and costs.

a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an 

initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v.

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward 

departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at 

1348.

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 and 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 and 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 a petitioner’s fee 

application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 

719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its 

attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health 

and Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991) rev’d on other grounds and aff’d 

in relevant part, 988 F. 2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior 

experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests ... 
[v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee 

application.” Saxton, 3 F. 3d at 1521.

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel, Mr. Paul R. 

Brazil: $300.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $317.00 per hour for work performed in 

2018, and $325.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. Fees App. at 1. Petitioner also 

requests rates for the paralegals at the rates of $125 - $154 from 2017 – 2019. Id. These rates 

are consistent with what Mr. Brazil and his paralegals have previously been awarded for his 

work in the Vaccine Program, and the undersigned finds the rates to be reasonable in this case 

as well.

ii. Reasonable Hours Expended

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds the total number 

of hours billed to be reasonable. The billing entries accurately reflect the nature of the work 

performed and the undersigned does not find any of the entries to be objectionable.

Respondent also has not indicated that he finds any of the entries to be objectionable either. 

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the full amount of attorneys’ fees sought, $20,257.60.

b. Attorneys’ Costs

Petitioner requests a total of $4,995.10 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of 

acquiring medical records, travel costs for petitioner, and the Court’s filing fee. Fees App. at 2. 

All of these costs are typical of Vaccine Program litigation and petitioner has provided 

adequate documentation supporting them. Accordingly, the requested attorneys’ costs are 

reasonable, and petitioner shall be fully reimbursed.

II. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable compensate

petitioner and her counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $15,262.50

(Total Reduction from Billing Hours) -

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $15,262.50

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $4,995.10

(Reduction of Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $4,995.10

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $20,257.60

Accordingly, the undersigned awards $20,257.60 in attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form 

of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Paul R. Brazil. 
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk 

of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey 

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice enouncing 

the right to seek review.