In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-41V

Filed: December 13, 2019

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

DONALD A. BARRETT, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Matthew F. Belanger, Esq., Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

On January 8, 2018, Donald A. Barrett (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2 Petitioner alleged that he developed GuillainBarré syndrome (“GBS”) and GBS-caused chronic inflammatory sensory 

polyradiculoneuropathy as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 18, 

2015. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 30, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation, which the 

undersigned adopted as her Decision awarding compensation on the same day. ECF No. 32.

On September 16, 2019, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF 

No. 36 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of

 

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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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.
2

$20,660.40 (representing $20,050.00 in attorneys’ fees and $610.40 in costs). Fees App. at 1. 

Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that he has not personally incurred any costs 

in pursuit of this litigation. Fees App. Ex. 3. Respondent responded to the motion on September 

16, 2019, stating “Respondent issatisfied the statutory requirementsfor an award of attorneys’fees

and costs are met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned “exercise her discretion and 

determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Response at 2-3, ECF No. 37. 

Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Legal Framework

The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs.” § 

15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is 

automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not 

prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” 

and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because petitioner 

was awarded compensation, he is entitled to a reasonable award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Federal Circuit has endorsed the use of the lodestar approach to determine what 

constitutes “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs” under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec'y of 

Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an initial 

estimate of a reasonable attorneys' fees” is calculated 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)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward 

based on other specific findings. Id.

Special masters have substantial discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request 

sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing petitioners with 

notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 

201, 209 (2009). Special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner's fee 

application when reducing fees. See Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. 

Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

II. Discussion

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar 

services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d 

at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for 

the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of petitioner's 

attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorney's fees 

to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum 

jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum 
3

hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human 

Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery 

Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

Petitioner requests that his attorney, Mr. Matthew Belanger, be compensated at $350.00 

per hour for all work performed. Fees App. at 3. This rate is consistent with what Mr. Belanger 

has previously been awarded for his vaccine program work and is reasonable in this case as well. 

See Terrore v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1195V, 2017 WL 7791113 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Oct. 3, 2017); Purcell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-770V, 2016 WL 7655188 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 1, 2016)

B. Hours Reasonably Expended

Attorneys' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are 

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton ex rel. 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)). “Unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a 

single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing 

excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys 

entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 

703 (2016). While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be 

comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 08–243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). 

Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g., 

McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at onehalf of the normal hourly attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–756V, 

2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And “it is 

inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine 

Program.” Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 14–1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Ultimately, 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.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number 

of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 728–

29 (affirming the Special Master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of 

Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).

The overall hours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has 

reviewed the billing entries and finds that the billing entries adequately describe the work done on 

the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable, nor 

has respondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a final 

award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,050.00.

C. Reasonable Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
4

Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests 

a total of $610.40 in costs, comprised of obtaining medical records and the Court’s filing fee. Fees 

App. Ex. 4. These are typical costs in Vaccine Program cases and appear reasonable in the 

undersigned’s experience. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of attorneys’ costs 

sought.

III. Conclusion

Based on all the above, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to the following 

award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $20,050.00

(Reduction to Fees) -

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $20,050.00

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $610.40

(Reduction of Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $610.40

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $20,660.40

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned has 

reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that petitioner’s request for fees and 

costs is reasonable. Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

1) A lump sum in the amount of $20,660.40, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner and his attorney, 

Mr. Matthew Belanger.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the 

Court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mindy Michaels Roth

 Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master

 

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek 

review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).