In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-0577V 

Filed: May 8, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

LEORA LACLAIR-MONTAGUE, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Gabrielle Manganiello Fielding, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On April 28, 2017, petitioner 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 left shoulder injuries caused-in-fact by the 

tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination she received on December 

14, 2015.

3 Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 15. On February 7, 2019, the undersigned issued a 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 

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, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such 

material from public access. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the 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).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).

3 As noted by the parties in the stipulation, although the petition indicates the Tdap vaccination was 

administered on December 7, 2015, the medical records show it was administered on December 14, 
2 

decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF 

No. 48. 

On April 8, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 

52. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $22,075.40 and attorneys’ 

costs in the amount of $856.81. Id. at 2. In accordance with General Order #9, 

petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 

2. Thus, the total amount requested is $22,932.21. 

 

On April 9, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF No. 53. 

Respondent states that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully 

recommends that the Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a 

reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. 

Petitioner filed no reply. 

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s 

request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the 

reason listed below 

I. Legal Standard 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 

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. at 482, 484 (1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees 

and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel 

 

2015. See, e.g., Exhibit 1 (record of vaccination included in the record from petitioner’s urgent care visit 

on December 14, 2015); Exhibit 2 at 14-17 (complete record from that visit). 
3 

“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.

II. Discussion

A. Hourly Rates 

i. Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq. 

Petitioner requests the following rates for work performed by Shealene Mancuso; 

$225 for work performed in 2017 and $250 for work performed in 2018 and 2019. Ms. 

Mancuso has previously been awarded the rate of $225 for work performed in 2017 and 

the rate of $233 per hour for 2018. See Hyatt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

17-0650V, 2018 WL 4611618, (Fed. Cl. Spcl. Mstr. June 22, 2018)4. The undersigned 

reduces Ms. Mancuso’s rate to the previously awarded rate of $233 per hour for work 

performed in 2018. This reduces the request for attorney fees in the amount of 

$363.805. The undersigned finds the rate of $250 reasonable for time billed in 2019 and 

awards it herein. 

ii. Paralegal Rates 

Petitioner requests compensation for paralegal Tereza Pavlacsek at the rate of 

$150 per hour for time billed in 2019. The paralegals of Muller Brazil have previously 

been awarded the rate of $125 per hour for time billed in 2018. Regarding the

requested rate increase to $150 per hour for 2019, petitioner did not file supporting 

documentation to support such a large increase. The undersigned will award an 

increased hourly rate for the paralegals for 2019, to the rate of $140 per hour. This 

results in a reduction of attorney fees requested in the amount of $11.006. 

III. Attorney Costs

Petitioner requests compensation of attorneys’ costs in the amount of $856.81. 

The undersigned finds the overall amount of costs reasonable and awards the amount 

requested in full. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS

IN PART petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

4 Ms. Mancuso was known as Shealene Priscilla Wasserman at the time of the Hyatt decision. 

5 This amount consists of $250 - $233 = $17 x 21.4 = $363.80. 

6 This amount consists of $150 - $125 = $25 x 1.1 hrs = $11.00. 
4 

 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $22,557.417 as a lump 

sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel 

Shealene Priscilla Mancuso. 

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

 

7 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all 

charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. 

Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would 

be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).

8 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.