In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0692V 

(not to be published)

CAROLYN CLARK,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: December 15, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs; First 

Class Airfare 

Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren et al., P.C., Memphis, TN,, for Petitioner.

Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On May 10, 2019, Carolyn Clark 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 left shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration as a result of an influenza vaccination received on November 

7, 2016. (Petition at 1). On May 26, 2021, a decision was issued awarding 

compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 35).

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated October 20, 

2021 (ECF No. 41), requesting a total award of $40,105.31 (representing $36,910.50 in 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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

fees and $3,194.81 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that she not incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 

41-3). Respondent reacted to the Motion on October 21, 2021, 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 resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. (ECF 

No. 42). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. 

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 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.” 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 

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

461 U.S. at 434.
3

ATTORNEY FEES

I have reviewed the rates requested for the work of the various attorneys and legal 

staff involved in this case. The billing invoices indicate that most of the time billed was 

performed by Christopher Webb, plus some law clerks and paralegals. (ECF No. 41-2 at

20). The rates requested for Mr. Webb have been previously reviewed in other cases and 

deemed appropriate and shall be awarded in this matter as well. And the time billed to 

the matter was reasonably incurred, and shall not therefore be reduced.

Petitioner also requests rates ranging from $153.00 per hour to $161.00 per 

hour for work performed by paralegals and law clerks. (Id.) The rates requested for all 

parties are consistent with what has been previously awarded for their work in the 

Vaccine Program for time billed through 2021, and the amount of work performed by 

paralegals was reasonable.

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner seeks $3,194.81 in attorney’s costs that include travel, medical records, 

postage and filing. (ECF No. 41-2 at 21). Upon my review of the receipts submitted for 

travel, however, it appears the amount of costs requested for reimbursement of airfare

charges are somewhat excessive. All travel was billed by Mr. Webb, who has had previous 

requests for airfare costs reduced, yet continues to bill for travel that is not reimbursable 

by the Program.3

Specifically, the submitted cost substantiation indicates that Mr. Webb booked 

a first-class flight from Memphis, TN to Columbus, OH on June 12, 2019, to meet with 

the Petitioner, at a cost of $958.00. (ECF No. 41-2 at 35). Petitioner only requests 

reimbursement for the (slightly) lower sum of $908.00, presumably based on the idea

that this was the coach ticket cost. (Id. at 45 - 48). Independent research, however, 

establishes that a coach ticket for the same route traveled, purchased around the same 

3 Black McLaren has had requests for attorney’s costs previously reduced for excessive airfare and 

other luxury costs in multiple cases including but not limited to; Wright v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 12-0423V, 2018 WL 7051676 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 2018); Digerolamo v. Sec’y of

Health& Human Serv., No. 16-0920V, 2019 WL 4305792 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jun. 28, 2019); Spivey 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., No. 18-0959V, 2019 WL 7580151 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12,

2019); and Lepper v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0984V, 2019 WL 7580152 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Dec. 12,2019).
4

time, would likely cost no more than $387 ($620 round trip) –a fraction of what Petitioner 

seeks. 

Counsel in this case has been repeatedly warned not to request first class rates,

but continues to do so. See, Wright v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-0423V, 

2018 WL 7051676 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 2018); Digerolamo v. Sec’y of Health

& Human Serv., No. 16-0920V, 2019 WL 4305792 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jun. 28,

2019); Spivey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serv., No. 18-0959V, 2019 WL 7580151 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2019); and Lepper v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 18- 0984V, 2019 WL 7580152 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2019). Most recently, 

counsel was warned that if requesting first class airfare continued, the request will be 

denied in its entirety. See Robinson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1134V, 

2020 WL 4198759 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 8, 2020).

As counsel has not complied with prior warnings regarding first class airfare, I 

hereby deny the requested $908.00 for airfare. 

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 $39,197.31 (representing $36,910.50 in fees and $2,286.81 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.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 by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.