In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-568V 

(not to be Published) 

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

 * 

MARK GREER, *

 * Special Master Corcoran 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Filed: May 16, 2017 

 * 

 v. * Decision; Attorney’s Fees and Costs. 

 * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Danielle A. Strait, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. 

Althea W. Davis, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On June 3, 2015, Mark Greer filed a petition seeking compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that he suffered 

from Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of his November 5, 2014, receipt of the Tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine. The parties eventually filed a stipulation for damages on 

November 9, 2016 (ECF No. 26), which I adopted by decision, dated November 10, 2016. ECF 

No. 27. 

 

1

 This decision has been designated “not to be published,” which means I am not directing it to be posted on the Court 

of Federal Claims’s website. However, it will nevertheless be posted elsewhere, in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As provided by 42 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 fourteen 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 files 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 in its present form. Id. 

2

 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 
2 

Petitioner has now filed a motion requesting final attorney’s fees and costs, dated April 19, 

2017. See ECF No. 32 (Ex. 14) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s 

fees and costs in the combined amount of $21,238.08 (representing $19,509.60 in attorney’s fees, 

plus $1,728.48 in costs). Fees App. at 1-2. Additionally, and in accordance with General Order 

No. 9, Petitioner represents that he did not incur any personal costs in connection with this case. 

Id. at 2; ECF No. 32-3 (Ex. 16). 

Respondent reacted to the motion on May 3, 2017, indicating that he is satisfied that the 

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

to my discretion the determination of the amount to be awarded. ECF No. 35 at 2. Petitioner 

thereafter filed a reply on May 10, 2017. ECF No. 37. In it, Petitioner argued that Respondent’s 

choice to not take a position on the fees award prejudices Petitioner, as it is Respondent’s 

responsibility to note if a request for attorney’s fees and costs is unreasonable. Id. at 2. Petitioner 

otherwise reiterated his request for attorney’s fees and costs as set forth in his fees application. Id.

As a successful Vaccine Program petitioner, Mr. Greer is entitled to a fees award. The 

hourly rates requested herein are in accordance with those I and other special masters have 

previously awarded to Petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Danielle Strait.3 See, e.g., Foster v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., No. 14-309V, 2016 WL 7233943 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 15, 2016); Dearing 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-289V, 2016 WL 7451349 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 

2, 2016). Therefore, I will likewise award them. 

The majority of the hours expended on this matter (85.8 hours in total) were also 

reasonable. The time it took to resolve the case was mainly the product of the parties’ damages 

discussions. But fees and costs associated with settlement are properly reimbursable. Thomas v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 92-46V, 1997 WL 74664, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 

3, 1997) (rejecting Respondent’s assertion that the fees and costs should necessarily be lower when 

a case settles without a hearing). 

I will, however, make one adjustment to the requested hours. On June 23-24, 2015, the 

billing invoices reflect 8.9 hours of attorney time devoted to travel to visit Petitioner, on top of 2.5 

 

3

 Petitioner’s application for fees and costs also includes a proposed hourly rate of $320 per hour for Ms. Strait’s 2017 

work – higher than what she has received for prior years in other cases. Because Respondent does not maintain an 

objection to the amount of fees and costs sought by Petitioner, and because I find that the total sum requested is 

reasonable under the circumstances, I do not reach the question of whether Ms. Strait is entitled to the requested 2017 

rate under the hourly rate ranges established in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 20145 

WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). This decision therefore does not constitute specific approval of this 

requested rate. 

 
3 

hours actually meeting with Petitioner. Fees App. at 3. It is common practice in the Program to 

compensate hours spent traveling at one-half of the normal hourly attorney rate, although the fact 

that an attorney is traveling is not automatically dispositive of how to treat such attorney time. See, 

e.g., King v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-584V, 2009 WL 2524564, at *4 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009); Kuttner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-195V, 2009 WL 

256447, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2009). In some situations, an award of full attorney’s 

fees for travel is appropriate if sufficient documentation exists specifying the work performed 

while traveling. Gruber v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 91 Fed. Cl. 773, 791 (2010). 

Here, the billing invoices list several entries related to the same meeting with Petitioner. 

The entries related to actual travel are separate from the time spent meeting with Petitioner, and 

they do not reveal that any work was being performed during counsel’s travel time. Fees App at 

3. Thus, the time entries reflect work that does not merit full compensation under Program 

standards, and I will therefore (in accordance with the usual practice) only award 4.45 of the 8.9 

hours billed to this travel activity, resulting in a deduction of $1,312.75. 

As noted above, Petitioner additionally requests an award of litigation costs for counsel in 

the amount of $1,728.48, reflecting payments for the filing fee, medical records, and travel costs 

associated with a meeting with Petitioner. Ex. 15 at 1. Respondent has offered no specific 

objections to these costs, and upon review of the record I find that they are reasonable. 

Accordingly, based on the reasonableness of Petitioner’s request, I hereby GRANT 

Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. An award of $19,925.33 (representing 

$18,196.85 in attorney’s fees and $1,728.48 in costs) should be made in the form of a check 

payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Danielle A. Strait, Esq. Payment of this 

amount represents all attorney’s fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). In the 

absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court SHALL 

ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of Petitioner’s motion.4

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master 

 

4

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) 

a notice renouncing their right to seek review.