In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0626V 

(not to be published)

MELISSA R. WAGNER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: June 22, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Kimberly Wilson White, Wilson Law, P.A., Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner.

Traci Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On May 20, 2020, Melissa R. Wagner 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine she received on December 3, 

2018. (Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 24). On February 8, 2022, a decision was issued awarding 

compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 32). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 section 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 March 28, 

2022 (ECF No. 37), requesting a total award of $25,138.71 (representing $24,395.00 in 

fees and $743.71 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that Petitioner she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF 

No. 37-6). Respondent reacted to the motion on March 28, 2022, stating that he is 

satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met 

in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. (ECF 

No. 38). On March 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply stating, “Petitioner does not intend to 

file a substantive Reply to Respondent’s response other than what is contained herein”. 

(ECF No. 39). 

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

reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the reasons 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.” 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. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees 

and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. 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 
3

practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 

461 U.S. at 434.

ATTORNEY FEES

Petitioner requests compensation for attorney Kimberly White at the following 

rates: $430 per hour for time billed from 2019 – 2021 and $450 for time billed in 2022. 

(ECF No. 37-3 at 1-12). Ms. White was previously awarded the rates of $375 per hour for 

2018; $390 per hour for 2019; $405 per hour for 2020; and $425 per hour for 2021. See 

Fields v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0679V, Slip Op. 43, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

May 12, 2022). I agree with the reasoning from this earlier decision and reduce Ms. 

White’s rates to be consistent with Fields. This results in a reduction of fees to be awarded 

by $629.00.

3 For time billed in 2022, the requested rate of $450 per hour shall be 

awarded.

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner requests $743.71 in overall costs. (ECF No. 37-4). This amount is 

comprised of obtaining medical records, shipping costs and the Court’s filing fee. I have 

reviewed all of the requested costs and find one reduction is warranted. Specifically, 

Petitioner is requesting $242.76 in “monthly admin” costs consisting of monthly fax, 

phone, and legal research costs. (Id). These costs are more appropriately considered 

administrative overhead It is well established that attorneys cannot bill for administrative 

tasks, and this extends to costs incurred by an attorney. Additionally, these entries are 

so vague, that it cannot be deciphered if the work performed and its necessity to the 

case. Therefore, the requested costs will be reduced by $242.76.

4

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section

15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT IN PART Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and 

costs. I award a total of $24,266.95 (representing $23,766.00 in fees and $500.95 in 

costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

3 This amount consists of ($430 - $375 = $55 x 1.3 hrs = $71.50) + ($430 - $405 = $25 x 18.80 hrs = $470) 

+ ($430 - $425 = $5 x 12.50 hrs = $62.50) + ($450 - $425 = $25 x 1 hr = $25) = $629.00.

4 This amount consists of 14 monthly charges of $8.34 and 14 monthly charges of $9.00. 
4

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.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

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

renouncing their right to seek review.