In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1894V

(Not to be Published)

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

ELIZABETH WATKINS, *

* Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, * 

* Dated:June 4, 2021

v. * 

*

*

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Office of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Colleen Hartleys, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION GRANTING FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On December 6, 2017, Elizabeth Watkins filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”),2 alleging that the influenza 

vaccine she received on October 8, 2016, caused her to experience a shoulder injury related to the 

vaccine administration. The case was originally assigned to the Special Processing Unit, but was 

transferred out after Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending that entitlement to 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This 

means that the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the 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 to the public. 

Id.

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

100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 

All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
2

compensation be denied. The matter was then assigned to Special Master Roth, but subsequently 

transferred to me on July 30, 2020. See Docket Entry, dated July 30, 2020. On October 16, 2020 I 

issued a decision awarding damages based on an agreed upon stipulation by the parties. See 

Decision, dated Oct. 16, 2020 (ECF No. 54). 

Petitioner has now filed a motion for a final award of attorney’s fees and costs for all work 

performed on the matter since its inception. Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed May 

27, 2021 (ECF No. 59) (“Fee App.”). Petitioner requests a final award of $40,110.75—$38,826.60

in attorney’s fees, plus $1,284.15 in costs. Id. at 1. The costs requested include costs for medical 

record retrieval, medical record review fees, and shipping costs. Costs Invoice, filed as Ex. 59-2

on May 27, 2021 (ECF No. 59-2).

Respondent reacted to the fees request on June 1, 2021. SeeResponse, dated June 1, 2021

(ECF No. 60). Respondent is satisfied that the statutory requirements for a fees award are met in 

this case, but defers the calculation of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Id. at 3–4. 

Petitioner replied to Respondent’s reaction on June 1, 2021 noting that Respondent raises no 

specific objections in his response and reiterating her entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs. 

For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s motion, awarding fees and 

costs in the total amount of $40,110.75. 

ANALYSIS

I. Reasonable Attorney’s Fees

Under the Vaccine Act, successful petitioners like Ms. Watkins are entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section 15(e)(1). Thus, the only question posed herein is the 

calculation of the award to be made. 

Determining the appropriate amount of the fees award is a two-part process. The first part 

involves application of the lodestar method—“multiplying the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 

515 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). 

The second part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down to take relevant factors into 

consideration. Id. at 1348. This standard for calculating a fee award is considered applicable in 

most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 

429–37 (1983). 

An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the 

proper hourly rate to be awarded on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C., 
3

for Vaccine Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there 

is a substantial difference in rates (the so-called “Davis exception”). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 

(citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. 

Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges 

for attorneys with different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine 

Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at 

*19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

Petitioner requests the following rates for her attorney and support staff, based on the years 

work was performed:

Fees Invoice, filed May 27, 2021 (ECF No. 59-1) (“Fees Invoice”). 

Ms. Durant (who practices in Washington, DC) is “in forum,” and is therefore entitled to 

the rates established in McCulloch. The rates requested for Ms. Durant (as well as the paralegal 

work performed in this case) are also consistent with what has previously been awarded in the 

Program for her work, and in accordance with the Office of Special Masters’ fee schedule.

3 See, 

e.g., Dorr v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-237V, 2021 WL 2000304 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021); Hanson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-997V, 2018 WL 2772519, 

at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 9, 2018); Goins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-848V, 

2018 WL 702104 , at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 10, 2018). Thus, I find no cause to reduce them 

in this instance. I also deem the time devoted to the matter reasonable, and therefore award fees 

for all work performed on the case, as requested in the fees application.

II. Calculation of Costs

Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must 

also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Presault v. United States, 52 Fed. 

Cl. 667, 670 (2002); Perreira v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992).

Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while 

working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at 

*16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). When petitioners fail to substantiate a cost item, such as 

3 OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914 (last visited Mar. 

22, 2021).

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Ms. Leah Durant

(Attorney) $350 $375 $377 $380 $395 $420

Paralegals $145 $145 $150 $150 $160 $165
4

by not providing appropriate documentation to explain the basis for a particular cost, special 

masters have refrained from paying the cost at issue. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005). 

Petitioner seeks $1,284.15 in costs incurred since the claim’s filing, including medical 

record retrieval, medical record review fees, and shipping costs. Fees App. at 1; Costs Invoice. 

Such costs are typical in Program cases, were reasonably incurred in this matter, and are thus 

eligible for reimbursement.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining the propriety 

of a final fees award, and based on the foregoing, I GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s 

Fees and Costs. I therefore award a total of $40,110.75, reflecting $38,826.60 in attorney’s fees

and $1,284.15 in costs, in the form of a check made jointly payable to Petitioner and her attorney 

Ms. Leah Durant.

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 this decision.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices 

renouncing their right to seek review.