In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-1248V

(not to be published)

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

REGINALD GROSE, *

* Special Master Corcoran

*

Petitioner, * Filed: November 5, 2018

*

v. * Decision; Attorney’s Fees and Costs;

* Reasonable Basis. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Claudia B. Gangi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

FINAL ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On September 30, 2016, Reginald Grose filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).

2 The Petition alleges that 

the influenza (“flu”) vaccine Mr. Grose received on October 7, 2013, caused him to suffer right 

shoulder tendinitis, bursitis, and brachial neuritis. See Petition (“Pet.”) (ECF No. 1) at 1. On 

January 19, 2017, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition alleging that he received a flu vaccine on

a different date—October 7, 2014,—that caused him to suffer right shoulder tendinitis, bursitis, 

and brachial neuritis, or alternately aggravated pre-existing right shoulder injuries. Amended 

 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This 

means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. 

Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any 

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged 

or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. 

Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 
2

Petition (ECF No. 14) at 1-2. The Amended Petition dropped all allegations relating to the flu 

vaccine received in 2013 (as it was administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder with no 

complications).

Following the filing of medical records and the Rule 4(c) Report in the case, Petitioner 

filed a motion for a ruling on the record on March 23, 2018 (ECF No. 39). Thereafter, I issued a 

decision dismissing the case on May 11, 2018 (ECF No. 41). 

Petitioner has now filed a motion requesting final attorney’s fees and costs, dated 

September 14, 2018. See generally Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Fees App.”) (ECF 

No. 44). Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of 

$21,898.44 (representing $21,127.60 for attorney fees, and $770.84 for costs). Id. at 2. Respondent 

filed a response on October 1, 2018, deferring to my discretion the determination of the amount to 

be awarded. See Response, dated Oct. 1, 2018 (ECF No. 45). Petitioner did not file a reply. 

For the reasons stated below, I hereby GRANT IN PART Petitioner’s Motion, awarding

attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $14,295.84 (representing $13,525.00 in attorney 

fees, and $770.84 in costs).

Procedural History and Fees Request

According to the billing record submitted with the fees request, Petitioner’s counsel began 

reviewing the case file in January 2016 (over seven months prior to filing the claim), and 

immediately worked to obtain Petitioner’s medical records thereafter. See, e.g., Ex. A to Fees App. 

at 5 (January 1, 2016 entry noting “meet with paralegal re vaccination date, record requests”), 5

(February 22, 2016 entry noting office prepared and faxed requests for records). Counsel 

conducted various tasks related to case preparation throughout the remainder of 2016 (including 

participating in email communication with Petitioner, discussing missing materials and records, 

and monitoring file updates). Id. at 5. 

Although somewhat vague, the same record reveals that counsel began reviewing medical

records in September 2016. See Ex. A to Fees App. at 5 (September 20, 2016 entry noting counsel 

“performed comprehensive file review to evaluate claim”), 5 (September 30, 2016 entry noting 

counsel “reviewed medical records and client file in preparation of filing petition”). Based upon 

my review, it appears that counsel (and her firm’s associates) completed around ten hours of work

pertaining to record review during September 2016 (prior to filing the claim). See id. at 5.

Following the filing of medical records, counsel filed the Joint Statement of Completion on 

October 25, 2016 (ECF No. 11), without filing any additional medical records. 
3

Counsel’s billing records suggest that additional medical records (including proof of 

vaccination) were then requested and received from December 2016 through March 2017. On 

January 19, 2017, Petitioner amended his Petition to correct the date he received the vaccination 

at issue (to October 7, 2014), as well as add a claim of significant aggravation of pre-existing right 

shoulder injuries (as he no longer relied on the 2013 vaccination date to support a direct causation 

claim with regard to portions of his claim). Am. Pet. at 1-2; see also Ex. A to Fees App. at 6

(December 20, 2016 entry noting office prepared and faxed requests), 7 (January 11, 2017 entry 

noting records were received), 7 (February 1, 2017 entry noting the same), 7 (March 1, 2017 entry 

noting additional records were requested). Following these requests, counsel filed two additional

sets of records on February 21, 2017, and March 22, 2017, respectively. See ECF Nos. 15, 20-21.

No additional records were filed following those dates.

Counsel thereafter filed an amended Joint Statement of Completion on March 23, 2017

(ECF No. 22). Respondent filed the Rule 4(c) Report on August 7, 2017 (ECF No. 31), contesting 

Petitioner’s right to an award of compensation. Counsel next worked to obtain an expert opinion

in support of Petitioner’s claim, and completed tasks relating to the same. See Ex. A to Fees App. 

at 9 (September 5, 2017 entry noting counsel contact Dr. Mark Bodor), 10 (October 1, 2017 and 

December 1, 2017 entries noting counsel spoke with Dr. Bodor regarding review of the case). 

Additional entries also reveal counsel’s work on the matter following Petitioner’s dismissal request

and my issuance of a Decision thereafter. See id. at 10.

Petitioner’s fees request asks that his counsel, Ms. Senerth, be compensated at a rate of 

$225 per hour for work performed in 2017, with an increase to $233 per hour for work completed 

in 2018. Ex. A to Fees App. at 9-10. Additionally, Petitioner requests compensation at a rate of 

$275 per hour for work performed by Mr. Paul Brazil in 2016, with increases to $300 per hour in 

2017, and $317 for work completed in 2018. Id. at 1-10. Petitioner also requests that counsel’s 

associate, Mr. Clark Hodges, be compensated at a rate of $225 per hour for work performed in 

2016-2017. Id. For paralegal time expended on the matter, Petitioner requests a rate of $125 per

hour for work completed in 2016-2017, with an increase to $150 per hour for work in 2018. Id.

Pursuant to the General Order No. 9 statement, Petitioner maintains that she has incurred no 

personal costs related to this matter. Fees App. at 2. The fees application also requests 

reimbursement for litigation costs incurred (representing medical record requests and the filing 

fee). Id.

Respondent reacted to the fees motion on October 1, 2018, 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 to my discretion the determination of the amount (if any) to be awarded. See Response, 

dated Oct. 1, 2018 (ECF No. 45). Petitioner did not file a Reply. The matter is thus ripe for 

disposition.
4

Brief Summary of Relevant Medical Facts

At the outset, Mr. Grose based his claim on receipt of the flu vaccine administered on 

October 7, 2013. See Pet. at 1. He later amended his Petition to include a significant aggravation

claim (of pre-existing right shoulder injuries) as well as clarify that his claims were related to the 

flu vaccine he received on October 7, 2014. See Am. Pet. at 1-2 (ECF No. 14) at 1-2; Ex. 3 at 1.

Petitioner made this change because (as it appears from review of the record) his flu vaccine in 

2013 was administered in his left shoulder without complication (and he perhaps confused his 

dates in his first version of the Petition).

Prior to receiving his flu vaccine on October 7, 2014, Petitioner carried multiple preexisting diagnoses related to ongoing back pain. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 39 (July 15, 2013 PCP visit 

noting complaints of muscle cramps, joint pain, back pain for 18-20 years, and muscle aches). For 

example, during a PCP visit in 2013, he reported that he injured his shoulder “years ago in a car 

accident” and that the pain began two to “three-and-a-half months ago” while doing pushups at 

home. Ex. 8 at 6, 8. On exam, Petitioner’s primary care physician (“PCP”) noted that he had signs 

of impingement syndrome and an MRI of his right shoulder revealed imaging consistent with 

rotator cuff tendinitis, subacromial bursitis, and mild arthritis. Id. at 6, 12; see also Ex. 6 at 6-8 

(December 30, 2013 physical therapy record noting treatment for shoulder pain). Additional PCP 

visits indicated that Petitioner presented with complaints again in April and May 2014. Ex. 2 at 

33-36 (April 21, 2014 visit noting concerns for muscle spasms, weakness, and right shoulder pain), 

29, 31-32 (May 19, 2014 visit noting complaints of pain/weakness in right shoulder, decreased 

range of motion, and atrophy, as well as past diagnoses of arthritis and tendonitis). According to 

Petitioner’s affidavit, he fully recovered from his injuries and was pain free by May 2014. See

Affidavit, filed as Ex. 11 (“Aff.”) (ECF No. 15-8) at 1-2. 

No adverse reactions were noted at the time of vaccine administration in October 2014. See

Ex. 3 at 1. The filed medical records suggest that Petitioner next presented for treatment on 

December 15, 2014 (roughly one and one-half months following vaccine administration).

Petitioner reported to the South Jersey Spine Center on that date complaining of constant shoulder 

pain (including burning, numbness, tingling, cramps, and stiffness) with onset twelve months prior 

to the visit (i.e. December 2013). Ex. 7 at 4-5, 6. Consultation notes indicated that Petitioner was 

assessed with shoulder pain and tenderness upon exam. Id. at 6-7.3

On January 19, 2015 (over three months following vaccination), Petitioner presented to his 

PCP reporting that his shoulder and neck pain had gotten worse since his last office visit 

 

3

It appears from Petitioner’s records that he scheduled multiple follow-ups with the South Jersey Spine Center 

throughout January to May 2015. See Ex. 7 at 13-14. However, the only other consultation notes filed were from a 

visit on February 18, 2015, which discussed a cervical MRI performed on the day prior. Ex. 7 at 10-11. Findings 

indicated Petitioner was suffering from a disc bulge and joint hypertrophy. Id. at 11.
5

(presumably in May 2014 based on the filed records), but that his muscle spasms had improved. 

Ex. 2 at 19. Notes from the visit indicated that Petitioner had decreased range of motion as well as 

atrophy in his right arm, similar to those symptoms experienced in May 2014 (prior to vaccine 

administration). Id. at 21; but see Ex. 2 at 31 (May 19, 2014 physical exam noting “+[d]ecreased 

strength and ROM with resistance on the right shoulder with flexion 3/5 . . . [p]ain in right shoulder 

with flexion, external rotation and abduction of right shoulder . . . [v]isible atrophy or right UE . . 

. ++weakness”). Petitioner returned for a follow-up visit on February 17, 2015, again reporting the 

“same” right shoulder pain (and also now more severe pain in his left shoulder) along with swelling 

of the right shoulder. Id. at 14, 16. Notes from the physical exam, however, noted the same 

problems he had been experiencing since May 2014. Id. at 16 (“+[d]ecreased strength and ROM 

with passive and active ROM of the right shoulder especially with flexion; strength 3/5 . . . [p]ain 

in right shoulder with flexion, external rotation and abduction of right shoulder . . . [v]isible atrophy 

of right UE . . . ++weakness”). He reported the pain began over the last year (i.e. placing onset 

around February 2014). Id. at 14. Offices notes make no mention of his receipt of the flu vaccine.

On March 19, 2015 (now over five months following his receipt of the flu vaccine), 

Petitioner presented for a rheumatology consult. Ex. 9 at 65-68. During the visit, Petitioner 

reported an onset of bilateral right shoulder pain (eventually progressing to the left shoulder as 

well) approximately two years prior around March 2013 (and thus before vaccination). Id. at 65. 

Office notes also included arthritis, subacromial bursitis, and tendonitis as pre-existing diagnoses. 

Id. Upon exam, Petitioner’s treating rheumatologist found decreased range of motion in both 

shoulders (as well as tenderness and pain). Id. at 66. He assessed Petitioner with bursitis and 

brachial neuritis/radiculitis. Id. at 67-68. Again, office notes did not suggest any vaccine 

involvement (or any aggravation of symptoms since the March 2013 onset). Petitioner presented 

for two rheumatology follow-up visits on May 7, 2015, and August 13, 2015, respectively. Ex. 4 

at 13-16. Notes from Petitioner’s follow-up appointments indicate the he continued to experience 

side effects from the bursitis (including deconditioning and decreased muscle mass). Id. at 13, 16. 

Between April and June 2015, Petitioner visited a pain specialist for treatment related to 

his chronic back and shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 7, 78-80. During these visits Petitioner reported that 

his shoulder ailments were improving, but that his neck pain persisted. Id. at 78. A physical exam 

was positive for decreased range of motion, right shoulder tenderness, and shoulder 

abduction/flexion. Id. at 79. As to onset, Petitioner specifically denied any particular inciting event 

or trauma. Id. at 78. He indicated that his pain was helped with the use of Naproxen, but 

exacerbated with increased activity. Id. Petitioner similarly followed up with his PCP throughout 

the months of April and May 2015 for monitoring of his symptoms. Ex. 2 at 10-12 (April 7, 2015 

visit indicating current problems include neck pain, right shoulder tendinitis, shoulder 

pain/weakness, but no new changes), 7-8 (May 19, 2015 follow-up visit for pain management).

On November 3, 2015 (almost a year post-vaccination), Petitioner presented for a 
6

neurology consult related to his progressive, bilateral arm and hand weakness. Ex. 2 at 50, 57; Ex. 

12 at 15, 57. During this visit, Petitioner provided a health history of right shoulder pain beginning 

“[a]bout 2 years ago after a flu shoulder [sic]” (i.e. around November 3, 2013) and that “a year 

ago” he experienced additional weakness in the left arm. Ex. 12 at 15. He also reported symptoms 

including arm/neck cramps, tingling, and muscle twitching. Id. at 16 Petitioner’s treating 

neurologist assessed him with “progressive, painless weakness of both arms and hands without 

sensory loss with non-explanatory cervical spine imaging.” Id. at 17. His overall diagnosis was 

bilateral arm weakness. Id. at 18. Apart from the notation of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain 

beginning after a “flu shoulder [sic]” in 2013, the visit notes do not indicate that Petitioner’s 

neurologist causally connected a vaccination to any subsequent symptom. 

Petitioner’s medical records (detailing medical visits from June 2015 through September 

2015) show he continued to seek various treatments for his shoulder and neck pain. See, e.g., Ex. 

2 at 68 (June 17, 2015 physical therapy treatment for brachial neuritis and muscle weakness), 65 

(September 21, 2015 noting the same); Ex. 6 at 22-46 (noting various physical therapy visits)

4

; Ex. 

13 at 1 (June 2, 2015 visit for epidural steroid injection related to cervical radiculopathy). His 

records also indicate that he developed additional health problems during 2015 which continued 

through the following year. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 72 (May 29, 2015 lymphoma diagnosis); Ex. 9 at 13 

(noting the same); Ex. 10 at 5 (February 11, 2016 visit noting chemotherapy treatment for 

lymphoma/Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia); Ex. 5 at 6-7 (May 8, 2015 carpel tunnel 

diagnosis); Ex. 12 at 1-3 (January 9, 2017 record noting a diagnosis of progressive amyotrophic 

lateral sclerosis or “ALS”).

The remainder of Petitioner’s filed medical records pertain to visits unrelated to the injury 

alleged herein. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 46 (December 17, 2015 hospital presentation for eye laceration), 

44 (February 1, 2016 hospital record for head abrasion following a fall). 

Apart from the filed medical records, Petitioner also filed an affidavit detailing his 

recollection of his health course both prior and subsequent to his receipt of the flu vaccine on 

October 7, 2014. See Petitioner’s Affidavit, dated Feb. 21, 2017, filed as Ex. 11 (ECF No. 15-8). 

In it, Petitioner acknowledged that he sustained a shoulder injury (attributable to tendinitis he 

developed after installing a video surveillance system) prior to receiving the October 2014 

vaccination. Ex. 11 at 1-2. He asserted, however, that by May 2014, he had “fully recovered” from 

the previous injury. Id. at 2. Following vaccine administration, Petitioner reported that he presented 

for various appointments from January to April 2015 (reporting a worsening of right shoulder and 

 

4 During a June 17, 2015, physical therapy visit, Petitioner reported that he developed “increased symptoms 3 months 

ago” (i.e. around March 2015) relating to his pre-existing diagnoses of bursitis and tendonitis in the shoulders. Ex. 6 

at 22. Consultation notes from Petitioner’s rheumatology visit in March of that year, however, indicate he reported an 

onset of shoulder symptoms two years prior to the visit (i.e. in March 2013). See Ex. 9 at 65-68. 
7

neck pain), which in his view, evidenced new shoulder problems. Id. Despite the above, 

Petitioner’s affidavit directly contradicts the medical records (as discussed below), which indicate 

that he consistently reported to treaters an onset of right shoulder pain prior to his receipt of the 

October 2014 flu vaccine. See, e.g., Ex. 9 at 65; Ex. 12 at 15. Moreover, although he reports a 

worsening of symptoms following vaccine administration, a closer examination of the filed records 

show no indication of any aggravation.

ANALYSIS

I. Reasonable Basis Standard

A. Relevant Legal Standards

I have in prior decisions set forth at length the criteria to be applied when determining if a 

claim possessed “reasonable basis”5sufficient for a fees award. See, e.g., Allicock v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 15-485V, 2016 WL 3571906, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 26, 

2016), aff’d on other grounds, 128 Fed. Cl. 724 (2016); Gonzalez v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 14-1072V, 2015 WL 10435023, at *5-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 10, 2015). In short, 

a petitioner can receive a fees award even if his claim fails, but to do so he must demonstrate the 

claim’s reasonable basis through some objective evidentiary showing and in light of the “totality 

of the circumstances,” including all facts relevant to the to the case. See Chuisano v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 286 (2014) (citing McKellar v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 303, 303 (2011)). The nature and extent of an attorney’s investigation 

into the claim’s underpinnings, both before and after filing, shed light on the extent of objective 

evidence supporting a claim (and when that evidence was, or could have been, unearthed). See

Cortez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-176V, 2014 WL 1604002, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Mar. 26, 2014); Di Roma v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90–3277V, 1993 WL 

496981, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 1993) (citing Lamb v. Sec'y of Health & Human 

Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 255, 258–59 (1991)). Program attorneys are expected to conduct a reasonable 

pre-filing investigation—including an evaluation of the factual basis for the claim at minimum. 

See Allicock, 2016 WL 3571906, at *4; Turner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-544V, 

2007 WL 4410030, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007) (“[a] reasonable pre-filing inquiry 

involves an investigation of the factual basis for a Program claim or the medical support for a 

vaccine petition”) (emphasis added)). 

 

5 Although good faith is one of the two criteria that an unsuccessful petitioner requesting a fees award must satisfy, it 

is an easily-met one – and Respondent does not appear to question it in this case. Grice v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 36 Fed. Cl. 114, 121 (1996) (in the absence of evidence of bad faith, special master was justified in presuming 

the existence of good faith).
8

The Court of Federal Claims recently provided further illumination as to the standards that 

should be used to evaluate whether the totality of the circumstances warrant a finding that 

reasonable basis existed. Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1291V, 2017 

WL 4546579, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 12, 2017). As Judge Williams therein stated, a special master 

should consider “the novelty of the vaccine, scientific understanding of the vaccine and its 

potential consequences, the availability of experts and medical literature, and the time frame 

counsel has to investigate and prepare the claim.” Id. at *5. An impending statute of limitations 

deadline, however, has been removed from consideration under the “totality of the circumstances” 

analysis. See Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.3d 632, 636 (Fed, Cir. 2017); see

also Amankwaa v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-036V, slip. op. at 9-10 (Fed Cl. June 

4, 2018) (“special masters must not consider subjective factors in determining whether a claim has 

reasonable basis[,]” and should “limit [their] review to the claim alleged in the petition . . . based 

on the materials submitted.”) (quoting Santacroce v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-

555V, 2018 WL 405121, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 5, 2018)).

B. Reasonable Basis Existed in this Case until March 23, 2017.

As noted above, Mr. Grose originally alleged in his Petition that a flu vaccine he received 

on October 7, 2013, caused him to develop various right shoulder injuries. Pet. at 1. He filed 

medical records offering some support (albeit weak) for this assertion. See Ex. 12 at 15 (indicating 

an onset of shoulder pain beginning “about 2 years ago after a flu shoulder [sic]”). He later 

amended his Petition (after obtaining proof of vaccination) to include a claim of significant 

aggravation of pre-existing right shoulder injuries, as well as correct the date of vaccine 

administration to October 7, 2014, once he realized he was mistaken about the date he received 

the vaccine. See Am. Pet. at 1-2.

Proof of vaccination is a fundamental threshold issue in Vaccine Program cases. See §

11(c)(1). In the context of reasonable basis however, I have found in previous cases that lack of 

such proof at the outset is not necessarily fatal to a claim. See, e.g., Livingston v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., No. 12-268V, 2015 WL 4397705, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 26, 2015). A

petitioner can overcome the lack of direct proof of vaccination having been administered through 

circumstantial evidence tending to establish that he did in fact receive the vaccine at issue. See, 

e.g., Lamberti v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2007) (finding medical record references to vaccine receipt constituted 

adequate evidence of administration). Here, Petitioner’s claim possessed at least some objective 

support for reasonable basis prior to its filing based on a statement made by a treating physician 

relating onset of his symptoms to a 2013 vaccination (Ex. 12 at 15). 

Although the records counsel possessed at the time of filing do raise the issue that a
9

vaccination could have played some role in his onset of symptoms, this does not mean that the 

facts of this case do not also militate against a full award of attorney’s fees through September 

2018, however, as requested by Petitioner. Well-reasoned decisions have noted that even cases 

that begin with reasonable basis can lose it over time, once more evidence comes in that reveals a

claim’s weaknesses. See, e.g., Pannick v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-0510V, 2016 

WL 8376894, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 8, 2016). I have ruled that reasonable basis ceased 

to exist for certain claims that initially had it for this very reason. See, e.g., Curran v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 15-804V, 2017 WL 1718791 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 24, 2017); 

see also Fieselman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-170V, 2017 WL 5398625 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Sept. 14, 2017); Butler v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1620V, 2017 WL 

3811134 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 3, 2017).

The billing invoices offered in support of the present fees motion demonstrate that counsel 

filed this claim without the benefit of full record review (based in part on Petitioner’s mistaken 

belief that he received the flu vaccine in his right arm in 2013). The additional records counsel 

eventually obtained however, not only showed that the 2013 vaccination was administered in the 

left arm, but also revealed facial deficiencies with Petitioner’s claim. Notably, none of his treating 

physicians appear to have attributed the October 2014 vaccination he received as playing any part 

in his health issues close-in-time to vaccination (or thereafter).

A review of the contemporaneous medical record filed in support reveals one sole reference

in Petitioner’s health history to a relationship between a flu vaccination he received and any 

subsequent shoulder problems thereafter—but it was to the 2013 vaccination (which he received

in his left shoulder). See Ex. 12 at 15. Otherwise, no treater related any of Petitioner’s symptoms 

to an onset of brachial neuritis or a significant aggravation of his pre-existing right shoulder

problems. Overall, the treater opinions set forth herein do not support Petitioner’s assertion that he 

suffered a vaccine-induced injury, and it is otherwise undeniable that he was never so diagnosed 

around the time of the vaccination – or later for that matter.

Further supporting a finding that reasonable basis ended before the case’s conclusion is the 

fact that Petitioner continued to report to treaters (even after receipt of the flu vaccine) that his

shoulder symptoms began long before his October 2014 vaccination. See Ex. 9 at 65-68 (March 

19, 2015 office visit diagnosing Petitioner with brachial neuritis where Petitioner reported an onset 

of symptoms two years prior); Ex. 2 at 14 (February 17, 2015 office visit noting a report of right 

shoulder pain beginning over the last year); Ex. 12 at 15 (November 3, 2015 office visit noting 

bilateral arm pain and weakness began “about 2 years ago”).

Admittedly, one record from January 2015 indicates that Petitioner reported his shoulder 

pain “ha[d] gotten worse since last OV.” Ex. 2 at 21. But upon physical exam, it does not appear 
10

that Petitioner’s treater noted any aggravation of symptoms. See id. at 21, 31; see also Ex. 9 at 65-

66; Ex. 12 at 15. Petitioner thus had pre-existing shoulder injuries (as early as March 2013), and 

continued to report the same problems to his treaters thereafter, with no clear aggravation or 

worsening of symptoms noted on exam. Based on my own review, I find there is insufficient 

evidence in the filed medical record supporting Petitioner’s claim that he experienced any vaccineinduce injury (whether an initiation or an aggravation).

The timeline revealed by the invoices submitted with this fees application bulwarks the 

conclusion that the claim’s lack of reasonable basis could have been determined long before its 

dismissal. An examination of the record reveals that Petitioner’s counsel began examining the case 

file over seven months prior to filing the claim (with ten hours of record review occurring at least 

one month prior to filing). Thereafter, counsel obtained supplemental records and completed

additional hours of record review following the filing of the Amended Petition. Counsel thus had 

ample time to learn of the claims made by Petitioner to his treaters placing onset of his symptoms 

prior to his receipt of the October 2014 vaccination (as well as the lack of any evidence of 

aggravation). Even a cursory review of the later-obtained records would have reasonably informed 

counsel the case was going to be very difficult to prosecute successfully. Overall, there is no 

persuasive evidence in the medical records which indicates that Petitioner’s vaccination caused 

him any harm, or that any treater opined that the symptoms he experienced were attributable to the 

October 2014 vaccination alleged to have caused his injuries.

Given all of the above, this claim’s lack of reasonable basis should have been determined 

sooner. Once the case was filed, it was incumbent upon counsel to perform and complete additional 

record review immediately, obtaining as quickly as possible any documents necessary for that 

inquiry. I therefore find that reasonable basis for this claim ended as of March 23, 2017 (the date 

counsel filed all remaining medical records), by which time it should have been clear to Petitioner 

(and counsel) that the claim lacked objective support. I will not award any hours of attorney or 

paralegal work performed following that date (with the exception of costs relevant to preparing

the dismissal). See Curran, 2017 WL 1718791, at *3-4 (awarding modest fees associated with 

winding down the case).

II. Calculation of Fees Award

Determining the appropriate amount of a fees award is a two-part process. The first part 

involves application of the lodestar method – “multiplying the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 

(1984)). The second part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down. Avera, 515 F.3d 

at 1348. 
11

An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the 

proper hourly rate on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, DC, for Vaccine Act 

cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there is a substantial 

difference in rates (the Davis exception). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008, citing Davis 

Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 

F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). As the Federal Circuit stated in Avera, inclusion of the Davis 

exception ensures against a “windfall” – meaning paying a lawyer in a rural or less expensive 

locale more than she would otherwise earn, simply because she is litigating a case in a court of 

national jurisdiction. Avera, 515 F.3d at1349. 

After the hourly rate is determined, the reasonableness of the total hours expended must be 

determined. Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 205-06 (2009). This 

inquiry mandates consideration of the work performed on the matter, the skill and experience of 

the attorneys involved, and whether any waste or duplication of effort is evident. Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437(1983).

Petitioner asksthat Ms. Senerth, her associates, and one paralegal, be reimbursed at varying 

rates for work performed from 2016-2018, as detailed above. Ms. Senerth’s firm, located in 

Dresher, Pennsylvania, has repeatedly been found to be “in-forum” and therefore she is entitled to 

the forum rates established in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 

WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).6See, e.g., Winterfeld v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 15-933V, 2018 WL 2225178 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 9, 2018); Colagreco 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-465V, 2016 WL 6518579 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 

26, 2016). The rates requested herein are the same as those awarded to counsel in my previous 

decisions, and I will reimburse counsel at the rates requested without reduction.

In light of my reasonable basis determination, however, I will make an adjustment to the 

time awarded for attorney services. As mentioned above, I will not award any hours of attorney or 

paralegal work performed after March 23, 2017 (with the exception of costs relevant to winding 

down the case and preparing it for dismissal). This results in an award of 62.9 hours for attorney 

work and paralegal work in 2016-2017—representing an elimination of 34.7 hours of attorney 

work and 1.3 hours of paralegal work (an overall reduction of $8,277.60). I will, however, award 

counsel three additional hours representing wind-down costs (awarded at Ms. Senerth’s 2017 rate

and totaling an additional $675). This amounts to a total fees award of $13,525.00. These 

 

6 The McCulloch forum rate ranges have been compiled into a list and posted to the Vaccine Claims section of the 

United States Court of Federal Claim website. The forum hourly rate fee schedule can be accessed at 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters (“OSM Hourly Rate Chart”).
12

reductions are in keeping with the “rough justice” I am empowered to effect when making fees 

awards in the Program, in order to account for the unnecessary time devoted to this matter. The 

amounts reduced are as follows:

Attorney/Paralegal Year Work 

Performed

Hours

Reduced

Hourly Rate Total 

Reduction

Senerth 2017 25.8 $225 $5,805.00

2018 5.4 $233 $1,258.20

Hodges 2017 .2 $225 $45

Brazil 2017 2.6 $300 $780

2018 .7 $317 $221.90

Loecker 2017 1.1 $125 $137.50

2017 .2 $150 $30

Total Fee

Reduction:

$8,277.60

Petitioner’s requested costs include reimbursement for the filing fee and requests

associated with obtaining medical records (representing $770.84 in total). See Fees App. at 2. 

These costs are reasonable and will be reimbursed in full. 

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(e). Accordingly, I award a total of $14,295.84 (representing $13,525.00 in attorney fees,

and $770.84 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and his

counsel, Amy Senerth, Esq. 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.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Special Master

 

7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the Parties’ filing of a joint notice not to seek 

review.