In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1225V 

(not to be published)

AVA STANSBERRY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 20, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

Kimberly Shubert Davey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On September 11, 2017, Ava Stansberry filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2

Petitioner alleged that a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis vaccine she received on 

November 20, 2014, caused or significantly aggravated an alleged shoulder injury. 

(Petition at 1.) On December 3, 2019, a decision was issued awarding compensation to 

Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 44). 

 1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated January 9, 

2020 (ECF No. 49), requesting a total award of $40,342.12 (representing $39,231.40 in 

fees and $1,110.72 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in the 

prosecution of this case. (ECF No. 49-3). Respondent reacted to the motion on January 

14, 2020, indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of 

attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, and deferring to my discretion to determine 

the amount to be awarded. (ECF No. 50). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. 

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a 

reduction in the requested amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason listed 

below. 

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.” Saxton, 3 F.3d. at 1522. Furthermore, a 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). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s

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

ATTORNEY FEES

A. Hourly Rates 

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for the work of her

attorneys: for Ramon Rodriguez, $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2016; for David 

Tierney, $254.00 per hour for work performed in 2019; and for Glen Sturtevant, $315 for 

work billed in 2017, $326 for work billed in 2018, $326 for work billed in 2019, and $353 

for 2020 time. (ECF No. 49-1). Petitioner also requests rates ranging from $140.00 per 

hour to $156.00 per hour for paralegal work, depending on the individual paralegal and 

the year of the work. (Id). 

The rates requested for Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sturtevant and the paralegals are 

consistent with what has been previously awarded for their work in the Vaccine Program

for time billed through 2019. Accordingly, no adjustment to the requested rates is 

necessary. However, I will make an adjustment for Mr. Tierney’s 2019 rate. The rate 

requested exceeds Mr. Tierney’s previously-awarded rate of $215.00 for time billed in 

2019. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0137V, 2019 WL 

5420107 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. September 20, 2019). I therefore reduce Mr. Tierney’s rate

the previously awarded rate of 2019 to $215.00 per hour. This reduces the fees to be 

awarded in the amount of $15.60.

3

Mr. Sturtevant is requesting the increased rate of $353.00 per hour for his time 

billed in 2020. Based on my experience I find the requested increase for time billed in 

2020 to be reasonable and award it herein. I also will allow the rate of $163.00 for time 

billed by his paralegals.

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 attorney’s

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 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Feb. 4, 2016). A total of 11.90 hours was billed on tasks considered administrative 

 3 This amount consists of $254 - $215 = $39 x 0.40 hrs = $15.60. 
4

including, receiving and paying invoices, organizing documents and creating and 

updating the client file. Examples of these clerical tasks include: 

• March 3, 2016 (1.0 hrs) “Set up and prepared ICP”;

• May 17, 2016 (2.0 hrs) “Organized records from Eskenazi Health”;

• August 30, 2016 (0.30 hrs) “Organized/combined records from same”;

• July 21, 2017 (3.70 hrs) “Continuation of organizing records from Eskenazi 

Health”; AND

• August 7, 2017 (0.10 hrs) “attention to incoming invoice from same” (0.10 

hrs) “update payment tracking log.”

(ECF No. 49-1 at 2-3., 6-8).4

The request for attorney’s fees will be reduced in the amount of $1,716.90 for all 

time considered administrative.5 

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner requests $1,110.72 in overall costs. (ECF No. 49 at 2). This amount is 

comprised of obtaining medical records, postage 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 $38,609.62 (representing $37,498.90 in attorney’s fees and $1,110.72 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.6

 4 These are merely examples and not an exhaustive list. 

5 This amount consists of ($140 x 3.40 hrs = $476) + ($145 x 7.30 hrs = $1,058.50) + ($152 x 1.20 hrs =

$182.40) = $1,716.90.

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

renouncing their right to seek review.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master