In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: February 21, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

DONALD WINTER, *

*

Petitioner, * No. 18-996V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Shealene P. Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner;

Julia M. Collison, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On July 11, 2018, Donald Winter (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant 

to the National vaccine Injury Compensation Program.242 U.S.C. §300aa-10 to -34 (2012). 

Petitioner alleged that he developed Guillain Barré syndrome as a result of receiving an influenza 

(“flu”) vaccination on September 14, 2015. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 9, 2019, Petitioner 

filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming he would be unable to prove that he was entitled to 

compensation under the Vaccine Program and proceeding with the claim would be a “waste of the 

resources of the Court.” See Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21. The undersigned entered her Decision 

dismissing Petitioner’s claim for insufficient proof on October 11, 2019. See Decision, ECF No. 

23. 

 

1 The undersigned intends 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, the undersigned 

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

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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.
On November 6, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. ECF No. 27 

(“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorney fee and costs in the amount of $13,312.60, 

representing $12,278.10 in attorney fees and $1,034.50 in attorney costs. Fees App. at 2. Pursuant 

to General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that he has not personally incurred any costs in 

pursuit of this litigation. ECF No. 22. Respondent responded to the motion on November 7, 2019, 

stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs are met in this case” and requested that the Court “exercise its discretion and determine a 

reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2-3, ECF No. 28. Petitioner did 

not file a reply thereafter. 

This matter is now ripe for consideration. 

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

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, although Petitioner’s claim was eventually dismissed, the 

undersigned finds that the petition was filed in good faith, and that there was a reasonable basis to 

file it. Respondent also has not challenged the good faith or reasonable basis. Accordingly, a final 

reasonable award of attorneys’ fees and costs in appropriate in this case. 

It is “well within the special master's discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. 

Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines 

v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant 

the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys' fees and 

costs.”). Applications for attorneys' fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing 

records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin 

v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the 

relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The “prevailing market rate” 

is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable 

skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. The petitioner bears the burden of providing 

adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

a. Reasonable Hourly Rate 

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for the work of his attorney, 

Shealene P. Mancuso: $225 per hour for work performed in 2017, $233 per hour for work 

performed in 2018 and $250 per hour for work performed in 2019. Fees App. at 1. Petitioner also 

requests paralegal rates ranging from $125.00 per hour to $165.00 per hour, depending on the 

paralegal and the year the work was performed. Id. These rates are consistent with what Ms. 

Mancuso and Muller Brazil, LLP paralegals have been previously been awarded for their Vaccine 

Program work. Accordingly, no adjustment to the rates is necessary. 
b. Reasonable Number of Hours 

Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are 

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well-established that billing for 

administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States, 

18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02*1616V, 2018 WL 

2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018). 

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed (66.7) to be reasonable. 

Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and, upon review, 

the undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner 

is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,278.10. 

c. Attorney Costs 

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

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

a total of $1,034.50 in attorney costs. This amount consists of acquiring medical records, postage 

charges, the Court’s filing fee. Fees App. at 14. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation 

of all these expenses, and all are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. Accordingly, the 

requested costs shall be awarded in full. 

II. Conclusion 

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2012), the undersigned has 

reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and 

costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to 

compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows: 

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $12,278.10

(Reduction to Fees) -

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $12,278.10

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $1,034.50

(Reduction of Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $1,034.50

Total Amount Awarded $13,312.60

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $13,312.60, 

representing reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check 

payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel of record, Ms. Shealene Mancuso. 
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler

Special Master

 

3 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.