In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0053V

Filed: October 26, 2021

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

LONN RICKSTROM, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

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

Christine M. Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

On January 10, 2018, Lonn Rickstrom (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2 Petitioner alleged that he developed brachial 

neuritis after receiving an influenza vaccination on October 13, 2016. See Petition (ECF No. 1). 

On January 12, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision 

awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF No. 34).

On August 11, 2021, petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 38). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount 

of $47,440.94, representing $44,518.40 in attorneys’ fees and $2,922.54 in costs. Fees App. at 1. 

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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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

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

in pursuit of this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on August 25, 2021, stating

“Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for 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 (ECF No. 39). Petitioner filed a 

reply on August 25, 2021, reiterating her belief that the requested amounts were reasonable. (ECF 

No. 40).

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 pursuant to a stipulation, he is entitled to a final award of reasonable 

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 
3

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

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)).

For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining 

the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys' fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See

McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and 

has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years.3

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel, Ms. Leah Durant:

$365.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $377.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, 

$380.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $395.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and 

$420.00 per hour for work performed in 2021. These rates are consistent with what Ms. Durant

has previously been awarded for her Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be 

reasonable herein.

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–

3 The 2015-2020 Fee Schedules can be accessed at http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly 

rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
4

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).

Upon review of the submitted billing records, the undersigned finds the majority of the

time billed to be reasonable. However, the undersigned notes a general issue of vagueness in the

description of many of the billing entries, particularly those for communication with petitioner. As 

the Federal Circuit has previously ruled, disclosure of the general subject matter of billing

statements does not violate attorney-client privilege and billing entries for communication should

contain some indication as to the nature and purpose of the communication. See Avgoustis v.

Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the instant case, many of the billing entries 

concerning communication do not contain any indication of the topic of that communication, (e.g., 

multiple entries billed for 0.4 hours for “client call”) making it difficult for the undersigned to 

determine whether such communication was necessary and reasonable. Thus, the undersigned

finds that a small reduction must be taken for the vagueness in describing some of the 

communications with the client.

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

resulting in a reduction of $890.36. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of 

$43,628.04.

C. Reasonable Costs

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

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

a total of $2,922.54 in costs for acquiring medical records, review of those records by Dr. Catherine 

Shaer, postage, and the Court’s filing fee. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation 

supporting the requested costs and all appear reasonable in the undersigned’s experience.

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs of $2,922.54.

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is 

GRANTED. The undersigned hereby awards a lump sum of $46,550.58, representing 

reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable 

jointly to petitioner and Ms. Leah Durant, Esq.

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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mindy Michaels Roth

 Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master

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

Vaccine Rule 11(a).