In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0926V 

Filed: June 17, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

DAVID COLUCCI, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On June 27, 2018, petitioner 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 a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

November 5, 2017. Petition at 1. On April 29, 2019, the undersigned issued a decision 

awarding compensation to petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 22. 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 

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, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such 

material from public access. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the 

action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' 

website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

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 

On May 9, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 

26. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,350.40 and attorneys’ 

costs in the amount of $648.60. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, 

petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. Id. at 44. Thus, the total amount requested is $18,999.00. 

On May 13, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF No. 

27. Respondent states that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 requires 

respondent to file a response to a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees 

and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory 

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

Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master exercise her 

discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. 

Petitioner has filed no reply. 

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s 

request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the 

reasons listed below. 

I. Legal Standard 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 

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. at 482, 484 (1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees 

and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Id. 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 

II. Attorneys’ Fees

A. Hourly Rates 

i. Jimmy A. Zgheib 

Petitioner requests the following rates for attorney Jimmy A. Zgheib; $230 per 

hour for work performed in 2017, $238 per hour for work performed in 2018 and $243 

per hour for work performed in 2019. Mr. Zgheib has been previously awarded the rate 

of $225 per hour for time billed in 2017. Swensen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 16-1535V, 2017 WL 7510694, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. September 21, 2017); Fowler v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,No. 16-1538V, 2017 WL 7796351 (Fed. Cl, Spec. Mstr. 

November 30, 2017).

3 The 2017 hourly rate will be reduced to the previously awarded 

rate, reducing the request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14.50. The undersigned 

finds the requested rates for 2018 and 2019 reasonable and awards them herein. 

ii. AnnMarie Sayad

 Petitioner requests the following rates for attorney AnnMarie Sayad; $230 per 

hour for work performed in 2017, $238 per hour for work performed in 2018 and $243 

per hour for work performed in 2019. Just as with Mr. Zgheib, Ms. Sayad has been 

previously awarded the rate of $225 per hour for time billed in 2017. Swensen v. Sec’y 

of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1535V, 2017 WL 7510694, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

September 21, 2017); Fowler v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1538V, 2017 

WL 7796351 (Fed. Cl, Spec. Mstr. November 30, 2017).4 The 2017 hourly rate will be 

reduced to the previously awarded rate, reducing the request for attorneys’ fees in the 

amount of $3.00. The undersigned finds the requested rates for 2018 and 2019 

reasonable and awards them herein.

B. Administrative Time 

Upon review of the billing records submitted, it appears that a number of entries 

are for tasks considered clerical or administrative. In the Vaccine Program, secretarial 

work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the 

attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Dingle v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 08-579V, 2014 WL 630473, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Jan. 24, 2014). “[B]illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the 

Vaccine Program.” Mostovoy, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (citing Rochester, 18 Cl. Ct. at 

 

3 Jimmy Zgheib was awarded the rate of $225 per hour while working for another firm. Although he is now 

currently a partner in his own firm, the rate of $225 per hour is still his established rate for work performed 

in the Vaccine Program during 2017. 

4 AnnMarie Sayad was awarded the rate of $225 per hour while working for another firm. Although she is 

now currently a partner in her own firm, the rate of $225 per hour is still her established rate for work 

performed in the Vaccine Program during 2017. 
4 

387). A total of 0.80 hours was billed by the attorneys on tasks considered 

administrative consisting of paying invoices online and through the mail. The 

undersigned reduces the request for attorneys’ fee by $122.40, the total amount of 

tasks considered administrative. 

III. Attorney Costs

Petitioner requests reimbursement for attorney costs in the amount of $648.60. 

After reviewing petitioner’s invoices, the undersigned finds no cause to reduce 

petitioner’s’ request and awards the full amount of attorney costs sought. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS

IN PART petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $18,859.105 as a lump 

sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel 

Jimmy A. Zgheib. 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief 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” as well as fees for legal services rendered. 

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

renouncing the right to seek review.