In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: March 27, 2020)

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

BARBARA SHEETS, * UNPUBLISHED 

* No. 16-1173V

Petitioner, *

* Special Master Dorsey

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Julia M. Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On September 20, 2016, Barbara Sheets (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she developed Rippling Muscle Disease after receipt of 

the influenza and tetanus vaccines on December 23, 2013, and/or that an underlying autoimmune 

condition was significantly aggravated by these vaccines. On April 30, 2019, the previously 

assigned special master issued his Entitlement Decision, denying compensation.

3

 

1 This Decision will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). This means the Decision will be available to 

anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 44 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)B), however, the parties may object 

to the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, Under Vaccine Rule 

18(b), each party has 14 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 

filed or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine 

Rule 18(b). Otherwise the whole decision will be available to the public in its current form. Id. 

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) 

(“Vaccine Act” or “the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 300aa. 

3 On October 7, 2019, this case was reassigned to the undersigned for resolution of attorneys’ fees and costs.
2

On November 27, 2019, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 40). Petitioner requests compensation in the 

amount of $102,783.19, representing $87,678.30 in attorneys’ fees and $15,104.89 in costs. Fees 

App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that she has not personally 

incurred any costs in pursuit of her claim for compensation. Id. Respondent filed his response on 

December 5, 2019 indicating that he “defers to the court regarding whether the statutory 

requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response, ECF No. 

41, at 2. Petitioner filed a reply on December 12, 2019, reiterating her belief that the requested 

amount of fees and costs is reasonable. Reply at 2, ECF No. 43. The matter is now ripe for 

disposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and 

awards a total of $98,399.27.

I. Discussion

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). 

When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith

and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. at 

§15(e)(1). In this case, although petitioner was denied compensation, the undersigned finds 

that both good faith and reasonable basis exist. Accordingly, a final award of attorneys’ fees 

and costs is proper.

a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees 

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an 

initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v. 

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward 

departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at 

1348.

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 and 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 and 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 
3

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 a petitioner’s fee 

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

719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its 

attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991) rev’d on other grounds and aff’d 

in relevant part, 988 F. 2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior 

experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests ... 

[v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee 

application.” Saxton, 3 F. 3d at 1521. 

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel, Ms. Leah 

Durant: $350.00 per hour for work performed in 2015 and 2016, $365.00 per hour for work 

performed from 2017, $377.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, and $380.00 per hour for 

work performed in 2019. These rates are consistent with what the undersigned has previously 

awarded Ms. Durant and the undersigned shall award them herein.

ii. Reasonable Hours Expended

In reducing an award of fees, the goal is to achieve rough justice, and therefore a special 

master may take into account their overall sense of a case and may use estimates when reducing 

an award. See Florence v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-255V, 2016 WL 6459592, at 

*5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). It is well 

established that an application for fees and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time 

billed so that a special master may determine, from the application and the case file, whether the 

amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760

(1989); Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468. Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and 

costs claimed. Id. at *8.

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds that reduction to the 

hours billed is warranted due to persistent vagueness in the billing entries. Illustrative entries of 

this issue include: 1.5 hours on 7/27/16 to “Draft and issue detailed correspondence (letter) to Dr. 

Albano-Aluquin; 1.5 hours on 10.24/17 to “Issue correspondence to expert (John Rinker). 

Update client file”; 3.5 hours on 5/7/18 to “Conduct legal research”; 2.5 hours on 6/11/18 to 

“Coordinate with medical expert. Devise legal strategy”; 1.5 hours on 7/30/18 to “Coordinate 

with medial expert. Update case file”. See generally Fees App. Ex. 1.4 The issue is that the 

vagueness of these entries does not allow the undersigned to determine whether the time billed is 

reasonable. Expending 3.5 hours on legal research could be reasonable, but the entry does not 

 

4 Such examples are merely illustrative of the issue and do not constitute an exhaustive list of all occurrences of 

vague billing.
4

describe what legal issues are being researched, or what the purpose of that research is. 

Expending 1.5 hours on preparing correspondence strikes the undersigned as excessive, but it 

could be reasonable depending on the purpose of the correspondence and the issues discussed. 

From the descriptions provided in several entries, however, the undersigned cannot assess the 

reasonableness of the work performed.

Accordingly, the undersigned shall reduce the final award of attorneys’ fees by five 

percent, resulting in a reduction of $4,383.92. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ 

fees of $83,294.38.

b. Attorneys’ Costs 

Petitioner requests a total of $15,104.89 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of 

acquiring medical records, the Court’s filing fee, records review by Dr. Catherine Shaer, and 

expert work performed by Dr. John Rinker. Fees App. Ex. 2 at 2. Dr. Shaer’s work in providing a 

preliminary review of medical records to assess a claim’s feasibility in the Vaccine Program has 

previously been found to be reasonable. Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-

894V, 2017 WL 4367159, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 8, 2017). Additionally, the costs 

incurred from the work of Dr. Rinker are reasonable in light of the work performed in the instant

case. Overall, the undersigned has reviewed the requested costs and finds them to be reasonable 

and supported with appropriate documentation. Accordingly, the full amount of costs shall be 

awarded.

II. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable compensate 

petitioner and her counsel as follows: 

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $87,678.30

(Total Reduction from Billing Hours) - ($4,383.92)

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $83,294.38

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $15,104.89

(Reduction of Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $15,104.89

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $98,399.27

Accordingly, the undersigned awards $98,399.27 in attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of 

a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Leah Durant.
5

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

Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Special Master

 

5 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.