In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

IBIRONKE AKINTAJU, *

* No. 17-1574V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: August 8, 2022

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Renee J. Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington Univ. Law School, 

Washington, DC, for Petitioner;

Darryl R. Wishard, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Pending before the Court is Ibironke Akintaju’s (“petitioner”) motion for 

final attorneys’ fees and costs. She is awarded $50,849.82.

* * *

1 Because this published decision 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). This posting means the 

decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 

18(b), the parties have 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.
2

On October 20, 2017, petitioner filed for compensation under the Nation 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 through 34.

Petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine she received on October 23, 2014, 

which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused her an 

allergic reaction and shoulder pain. In order to determine onset, the undersigned 

held a fact hearing on November 18, 2020. The undersigned issued his findings of 

fact on February 9, 2021. In response, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss her 

petition on March 5, 2021. The undersigned issued his decision dismissing the 

petition for insufficient proof on June 22, 2021. 2021 WL 2818361.

On October 21, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and 

costs (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees of $56,499.80 and

attorneys’ costs of $0.00 for a total request of $56,499.80. Fees App. at 1. Pursuant 

to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated that she has not personally 

incurred any costs related to the prosecution of her petition. Id. at 2. On October 

25, 2021, respondent filed a response to petitioners’ motion. Respondent argues 

that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for 

respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs.” Response at 1. Respondent adds, however that he “is satisfied the 

statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this 

case.” Id at 2. Additionally, he recommends “that the Court exercise its

discretion” when determining a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.

at 3. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

* * *

Although compensation was denied, petitioners who bring their petitions in 

good faith and who have a reasonable basis for their petitions may be awarded 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). In this case, although 

petitioner’s claim was ultimately unsuccessful the undersigned finds that good 

faith and reasonable basis existed throughout the matter. Respondent has also 

indicated that he is satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been 

satisfied. Respondent’s position greatly contributes to the finding of reasonable 

basis. See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008) (“[W]e rely on the 

parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral 

arbiter of matters the parties present.”) A final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs is therefore proper in this case and the remaining question is whether the 

requested fees and costs are reasonable.

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

§15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine 
3

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. This is a two-step 

process. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). First, a court determines an “initial estimate ... by ‘multiplying the 

number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly 

rate.’” Id. at 1347-48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). 

Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial 

calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348. Here, because 

the lodestar process yields a reasonable result, no additional adjustments are 

required. Instead, the analysis focuses on the elements of the lodestar formula, a 

reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours. 

In light of the Secretary’s lack of objection, the undersigned has reviewed 

the fee application for its reasonableness. See McIntosh v. Secʼy of Health & 

Human Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. 238 (2018)

A. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Under the Vaccine Act, special masters, in general, should use the forum 

(District of Columbia) rate in the lodestar calculation. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349. 

There is, however, an exception (the so-called Davis County exception) to this 

general rule when the bulk of the work is done outside the District of Columbia 

and the attorneys’ rates are substantially lower. Id. 1349 (citing Davis Cty. Solid 

Waste Mgmt. and Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. 

Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). 

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

counsel: for Ms. Renee Gentry, $424.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, 

$435.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $445.00 per hour for work 

performed in 2019, $464.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $489.00 per 

hour for work performed in 2021; and for Mr. Clifford Shoemaker, $440.00 per 

hour for work performed in 2017, $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, 

and $460.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. These rates are consistent with 

what counsel has previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and the 

undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein for work performed in the instant 

case. See, e.g., Chilazi v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-221V, 2021 WL 

3931913 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 1, 2021); Temes v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Servs., No. 16-1465V, 2021 WL 2375787 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 15, 2021);

Hoefling v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1935V, 2020 WL 6109440 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sep. 14, 2020).
4

B. Reasonable Number of Hours 

The second factor in the lodestar formula is a reasonable number of hours. 

Reasonable hours are not excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. See

Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

The Secretary also did not directly challenge any of the requested hours as 

unreasonable. 

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds that a 

reduction to the time billed must be made for several reasons. First, many of Mr. 

Shoemaker’s billing entries for communication (such as phone calls and e-mails to 

the client and other parties) is vague because it does not mention the topic of the 

communication. As the Federal Circuit has previously ruled, disclosure of the 

general subject matter of billing statements does not violate attorney-client 

privilege and billing entries for communication should contain some indication as 

to the nature and purpose of the communication. See Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 

F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Mr. Shoemaker has previously been 

cautioned that his billing entries should contain greater detail. Oliver v. Sec'y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 10-394V, 2019 WL 2246727 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Apr. 16, 2019); Price v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-442V, 2019 WL 

1796100 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 22, 2019); Prokopeas v. Sec'y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 04-1717V, 2017 WL 6763067 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 5, 

2017).

Second, Ms. Gentry billed time for the drafting of pro forma documents 

accompanying the filing of various exhibits. When an attorney does the work of a 

paralegal or administrative assistant, he or she should be paid a rate commensurate 

with the nature of the work. See Valdes v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 89 

Fed. Cl. 415, 425 (2009). In the undersigned’s experience, at a larger firm the 

drafting of such documents would typically be handled by paralegals because they 

do not require any specialized legal experience to create. To Ms. Gentry’s credit, 

she delineated other paralegal tasks from her normal time billed and charged an 

appropriate paralegal amount for those entries.

Finally, the undersigned notes that an excessive amount of hours have been 

billed as part of the GWU Vaccine Clinic, both in its general administration and in 

specific billing entries. Specific concerning entries include four hours billed on 

“Working on America brief” without any indication what that brief was about (and 

no brief being filed by petitioner around or after the date the work was performed) 

and vague descriptions of communication with the client and preparation for the 

fact hearing. Given that multiple student attorneys billed time to hearing 
5

preparation, it would have been helpful if the billing entries described with some 

detail what exactly they were doing to prepare for the hearing in order to ensure 

there wasn’t a duplication of efforts. The hearing itself was straightforward and in 

the undersigned’s experience, typically would have been handled by one attorney, 

and upon review, the total hours billed for hearing preparation are indeed high. 

A more general issue is the amount of time billed by Ms. Gentry, Mr. 

Shoemaker, and the student attorneys on class meetings. As other special masters 

have noted, although the clinic provides a hands-on experience with supervision 

from knowledgeable attorneys, “the attorneys should not bill this teaching function 

to the Vaccine Program.” Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-

1816V, 2019 WL 6588294, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 29, 2019). This issue 

has previously been noted several times in other cases involving the GWU Vaccine 

Clinic. See, e.g., Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-159V, 2017 

WL 877277, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 7, 2017); Boylston v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., No. 11-117V, 2016 WL 3080574 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 10, 

2016). The undersigned notes that billing for this teaching function extended 

beyond the student attorneys who actually participated in the hearing - one student 

attorney billed three hours to attend the hearing although she performed no other 

casework. Fees App. at 27. It is extremely unlikely that any client would pay for an 

attorney or paralegal with no prior involvement in the case to merely watch the 

hearing. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (“Hours that are not 

properly billed to one’s client are also not properly billed to one’s adversary 

pursuant to statutory authority.”)

Overall, the undersigned finds that a ten percent reduction is appropriate in 

order to achieve “rough justice.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). However, 

the undersigned notes that in future cases in which these same issues arise, the 

reduction will increase to reflect both a reduction of inappropriately billed time 

billed and a deterrent aspect to offset the increased use of judicial resources 

necessary to address these repetitive issues. See, e.g., Burgos v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No.16-903V, 2022 WL 1055355, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 

15, 2022).

Petitioner is therefore awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $50,849.82.

C. Conclusion

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

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). Accordingly, the undersigned awards a total of 

$50,849.82 (representing $50,849.82 in attorneys’ fees and $0.00 in attorneys’ 
6

costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and her

counsel, Ms. Renee Gentry.

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.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

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

joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.