VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01665
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01665
Petitioner: William Ranks
Filed: 2020-11-24
Decided: 2026-01-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-03
Condition: polymyalgia rheumatica
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60495

AI-assisted case summary:
William Ranks filed a petition for compensation on November 24, 2020, alleging that he suffered from polymyalgia rheumatica as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 3, 2019. The case has been pending for several years, involving the submission of medical records and expert reports from both parties. On November 16, 2023, Mr. Ranks filed a motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs totaling $61,170.20. Respondent deferred to the Special Master regarding the statutory requirements for the award. On December 12, 2023, the Special Master granted the motion, awarding $60,495.20 in interim attorneys' fees and costs, noting the protracted nature of the proceedings and the accumulation of fees. A subsequent decision on January 28, 2026, awarded a second interim payment of $34,091.98 for work completed by former counsel Andrew Downing, as Mr. Downing had withdrawn from the case. The court found that the statutory requirements for an interim award were met and that the requested fees and costs were reasonable, despite some reductions for duplicative paralegal work in the first award.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01665-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-05
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/12/2023) regarding 60 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees, Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (sh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 64 Filed 03/05/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 12, 2023
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WILLIAM RANKS, * No. 20-1665V
* Special Master Sanders
Petitioners, *
*
v. * Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Downing, Allison, & Jorgenson, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
Dorian Hurley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On November 16, 2023, Williams Ranks (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for interim attorneys’
fees and costs, requesting a total of $61,170.20 for his counsel, Andrew Downing2. Mot. Int.
Attorneys’ Fees & Costs at 7, 10, ECF No. 57 [hereinafter “Fees App.”].3 This amount consists of
$38,499.00 in fees and $22,671.20 in costs. Id. at 4. On November 30, 2023, Respondent filed his
response to Petitioner’s motion. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF No. 58. In his response, Respondent stated
that he “defers to the special master regarding whether the statutory requirements for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Further, Respondent “respectfully requests
that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and
costs.” Id. at 3. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will award interim attorneys’ fees
and costs for Petitioner’s counsel at this time.
1 This Decision shall be posted 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). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to
the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete
medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the
rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted Decision. If, upon review, the
undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material
will be deleted from public access.
2 In addition to Mr. Downing, who is the signatory on the motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs,
Ms. Allison, Ms. Jorgenson, and Ms. Avery also worked on this matter. Fees App. at 6-7.
3 All citations to Petitioners’ motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs, ECF No. 57, will use the page
numbers generated by CM/ECF.

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 64 Filed 03/05/24 Page 2 of 6
I. Procedural History
On November 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program”).4 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(2012); Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered from polymyalgia rheumatica as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 3, 2019. Pet. at 1. Petitioner filed
medical records on November 28, 2020 and January 3, 2021. ECF Nos. 6, 8. Petitioner then filed
a statement of completion one day later, on January 4, 2021. ECF No. 10. Petitioner filed
supplemental medical records on September 30, 2021, March 29, 2022, March 30, 2022, April 11,
2022, and May 5, 2022, followed by a statement of completion on June 2, 2022. ECF Nos. 19, 22-
23, 25, 27, 29. On July 18, 2022, Respondent filed a status report indicating that certain medical
records remained outstanding. ECF No. 34 at 2. On July 28, 2022, the Court issued a show cause
order to compel the outstanding medical records at issue. ECF No. 35 at 2. Petitioner filed a
response to the order to show cause and a motion to issue a subpoena to Verde Valley Medical
Center to obtain the outstanding medical records. ECF Nos. 36, 38. On December 6, 2022,
Petitioner filed the medical records from Verde Valley Medical Center. ECF No. 42. On January
5, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, indicating that this case was not appropriate for
compensation. Resp’t’s Report at 1, ECF No. 44. On May 11, 2023, Petitioner filed an expert
report and curriculum vitae from Dr. Eric Slavin, followed by medical literature on May 16, 2023.
ECF Nos. 48-51. Respondent filed an expert report by Drs. Maxime Kinet and William Hawse,
with accompanying medical literature and curriculum vitae. ECF No. 53. Petitioner filed an
additional expert report from Dr. Slavin with medical literature on November 14, November 15,
and November 16, 2023. ECF Nos. 54-56.
II. Availability of Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
A. Good Faith and Reasonable Basis
Under the Vaccine Act, petitioners may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs only
if “the petition was brought in good faith, and there was a reasonable basis for which the petition
was brought.” § 15(e)(1). Respondent does not object to Petitioner’s motion on the basis of good
faith or reasonable basis, and the undersigned finds that the statutory criteria for an award of
interim fees and costs are met.
B. Justification for an Interim Award
In Avera, the Federal Circuit stated that a special master may award attorneys’ fees and
costs on an interim basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2008). The Court noted that such awards “are particularly appropriate in cases where proceedings
are protracted, and costly experts must be retained.” Id. Similarly, the Federal Circuit held in Shaw
that it is proper for a special master to award interim attorneys’ fees “[w]here the claimant
establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists a good
4 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).
2

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 64 Filed 03/05/24 Page 3 of 6
faith basis for the claim[.]” Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 609 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2010).
Many cases in the Program are proceeding slower than they have in the past. See Miles v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-254V, 2017 WL 4875816 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct.
4, 2017) (“[i]t may be months to years before an entitlement ruling is issued”); Abbott v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-907V, 2016 WL 4151689, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2016)
(“[t]he delay in adjudication, to date, is due to a steady increase in the number of petitions filed
each year.”).
This case has been pending for almost three years, and an entitlement decision remains
outstanding. Meanwhile, Petitioner’s fees and costs have accumulated in the course of prosecuting
this case. Petitioner’s counsel has requested $61,170.20 in fees and costs, and “[i]t cannot be
seriously argued that in essence loaning cases thousands of dollars for years is not a hardship.”
Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-241V, 2009 WL 775396, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 13, 2009). Because of the protracted nature of the proceedings and the accumulation of fees
and costs, the undersigned finds an award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs reasonable and
appropriate in this case.
III. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . 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)). Second, the court may
make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on
specific findings. Id. at 1348.
It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant
the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and
costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing
records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however,
should not include hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d
at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).
Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate
“in the community for similar serves by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation.” Id. at 895 n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove
that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 64 Filed 03/05/24 Page 4 of 6
A. Hourly Rate
The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges
for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1,
2015), mot. for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Office
of Special Masters has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate
Fee Schedules for 2015–2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 can be accessed
online.5
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel: for Mr. Downing,
$385 per hour of work performed in 2020 and 2021, $415 per hour of work performed in January
through June of 2022, and $445 per hour of work performed in July through December of 2022
and 2023; for Ms. Allison, $415 per hour of work performed in 2022 and 2023; and for Ms.
Jorgenson (formerly Van Cott), $275 per hour of work performed in 2020 and 2021, $325 per hour
of work performed in January through June of 2022, and $345 per hour of work performed in July
through December of 2022 and 2023. Fees App. at 5-7, Ex. A at 17, 28. Petitioner also requested
the following rates for work of his counsel’s paralegals, Ms. Avery and Mr. Cain: $135 per hour
of work performed in 2020, 2021, January through June of 2022, and $155 per hour of work
performed in July through December of 2022 and 2023. Id.
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner's request, and
in my experience, the hourly rates billed for 2020 through 2023 for attorney time and paralegal
time are all reasonable and in accord with prior awards made by other special masters.
B. Reasonable Number of Hours
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, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley, 461
U.S. at 434).
Upon review of the submitted billing records, I find that paralegal Ms. Avery billed for
non-substantive analysis of medical records in a manner that was duplicative and excessive. The
Court has previously cautioned Ms. Avery for this manner of billing. See Mulrenin v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 18-22V, 2020 WL 7868230 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 2020);
Madigan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-1187V, 2021 WL 1626621(Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 1, 2021). In Mulrenin, the Court found the following:
Ms. Avery billed between 0.20 to 0.40 hours for “analysis of medical records ... to
determine begin and end date of records” for all the medical records received from
different providers before preparing to file such records. . .In some instances, Ms.
Avery then followed by billing an additional 0.30 hours for “analysis of file to
determine end date of previous records,” to update the file and request for
supplemental records. . .I find this work to be repetitive and does not reflect
substantive work in pursuing this case. Moreover, these records are also reviewed
substantively [by attorneys].
5 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 64 Filed 03/05/24 Page 5 of 6
Mulrenin at 3. As a result, the Court reduced Ms. Averys hours bills by 20%. Upon review of Ms.
Avery’s hours billed, I found the same manner of billing for “analysis of medical records ... to
determine begin and end date of records” from 2020 through May 2022. Ex. A 6-14. This type of
billing was not present from June 2022 through 2023. Therefore, I find that a portion of the work
billed by Ms. Avery from 2020 through May 2022 to be unnecessary and will reduce her hours
billed for this time period by 20%. This results in a reduction of 20.40 hours to 16.32 hours.
Therefore, $550.80 will be deducted from the interim fee award.
Additionally, I find that paralegal Mr. Cain billed for non-substantive analysis of medical
records in a manner that was duplicative and excessive. Many of Mr. Cain’s hours billed are to
“Review medical records received. . .specifically to reflect and identify potential critical items,
possible additional providers for whom we have not previously ordered records from and any other
pertinent information noted in the aforementioned records.” This work is also repetitive and not
substantively related to the case. Mr. Cain billed in this manner for this case from 2020 through
May 2022. Therefore, I find that a portion of the work billed by Mr. Cain for this time to be
unnecessary and will reduce his hours billed for this time period by 20%. This results in a reduction
from 4.60 hours to 3.68 hours. Therefore, $124.20 will be deducted from the interim fee award.
Upon review of the remaining submitted billing records, I find the time billed largely
reasonable. The invoice entries are sufficiently detailed for an assessment to be made of the entries’
reasonableness.
C. Attorney Costs
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests
a total of $22,671.20 in attorneys’ costs, primarily comprised of expert costs, medical records
costs, and filing fees. See generally Ex. A. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation of all
these expenses, and they appear reasonable for the work performed in this case. Therefore,
Petitioner is awarded the full amount of costs sought.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner’s motion is hereby GRANTED. In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(e), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds
that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the
undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows:
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $38,499.00
(Reduction to Fees) -($550.80)
(Reduction to Fees) -($124.20)
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $37,824
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $22,671.20
(Reduction of Costs) - ($0.00)
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $22,671.20
5

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 64 Filed 03/05/24 Page 6 of 6
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $60,495.20
Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $60,495.20 to be issued
in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Andrew Downing,
for interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the above Decision.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01665-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-01-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/02/2026) regarding 73 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (kis) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 2, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WILLIAM RANKS, *
*
*
Petitioner, * No. 20-1665V
*
v. * Special Master Young
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner
Dorian Hurley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On January 6, 2025, William Ranks (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees
and costs, requesting a total of $34,091.98 for the work of his former counsel, Andrew Downing.
Pet’r’s Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (“Pet’r’s Mot.”) at 17, ECF No. 70; Pet’r’s
Ex. A at 6, ECF No. 70-1. This amount consists of $34,036.50 in fees and $55.48 in costs. Id.
Petitioner has not incurred any personal costs related to the prosecution of his petition. Id. at 19.
On January 21, 2025, Respondent filed his response to Petitioner’s motion. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF
No. 71. In his response, Respondent stated that he “defers to the Special Master to determine
whether or not [P]etitioner has met the legal standard for an interim fees and costs award.” Id. at
2. For the reasons stated below, I will award interim attorneys’ fees and costs to Petitioner’s former
counsel, Mr. Downing.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). 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, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5
I. Procedural History
On November 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program”).2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(2018); Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered from polymyalgia rheumatica as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 3, 2019. Pet. at 1.
On November 16, 2023, Petitioner filed a first motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
ECF No. 57. On November 30, 2023, Respondent filed his response. ECF No. 58. Petitioner did
not file a reply. On December 12, 2023, I issued a decision granting $60,495.20 in interim
attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at 6. On October 28, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on
the record. ECF No. 67. Respondent filed a response on December 26, 2024, and Petitioner filed
a reply on January 6, 2025. ECF Nos. 68, 69.
On January 6, 2025, Petitioner filed a second motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
Pet’r’s Mot. Respondent filed his response on January 21, 2025. Resp’t’s Resp. Petitioner did not
file a reply. This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Availability of Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
A. Good Faith and Reasonable Basis
Under the Vaccine Act, petitioners may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs only
if “the petition was brought in good faith, and there was a reasonable basis for which the petition
was brought.” § 15(e)(1). Respondent does not object to Petitioner’s motion on the basis of good
faith or reasonable basis, and I find that the statutory criteria for an award of interim fees and costs
are met.
B. Justification for an Interim Award
In Avera, the Federal Circuit stated that a special master may award attorneys’ fees and
costs on an interim basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2008). The court noted that such awards “are particularly appropriate in cases where proceedings
are protracted, and costly experts must be retained.” Id. Similarly, the Federal Circuit held in Shaw
that it is proper for a special master to award interim attorneys’ fees “[w]here the claimant
establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists a good
faith basis for the claim.” Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 609 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2010).
Many cases in the Program are proceeding slower than they have in the past. See Miles v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-254V, 2017 WL 4875816 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct.
4, 2017) (“[i]t may be months to years before an entitlement ruling is issued”); Abbott v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-907V, 2016 WL 4151689, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2016)
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
(2018).
2

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5
(“The delay in adjudication, to date, is due to a steady increase in the number of petitions filed
each year.”).
Mr. Downing is no longer on the case. However, while he was on the case, Petitioner’s
fees and costs accumulated in the course of litigation. Petitioner submitted an itemization of
attorney fees, and a summary and documentation of costs. Petitioner’s counsel requested a total of
$34,091.98 in fees and expenses, and “[i]t cannot be seriously argued that in essence loaning cases
thousands of dollars for years is not a hardship.” Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-
241V, 2009 WL 775396, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 13, 2009). Because of the protracted
nature of the proceedings, and the fact that Mr. Downing has withdrawn as counsel and is no longer
on the case, I find an award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs reasonable and appropriate for his
work completed in this case.
III. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court
determines an “initial estimate . . . 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)). Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial
calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348.
It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991) (“[T]he reviewing court must grant
the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and
costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing
records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however,
should not include hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d
at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).
Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate
“in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation.” Id. at 895 n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove
that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.
A. Hourly Rate
The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges
for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1,
2015), mot. for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Office
3

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5
of Special Masters has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate
Fee Schedules from 2015 to 2025 can be accessed online.3
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel: for Mr. Andrew
Downing: $445.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $485.00 per hour for work performed
in 2024; for Ms. Ann Allison, $415.00 per hour for work performed in 2022 and 2023, and $435.00
per hour for work performed in 2024; and for Ms. Courtney Jorgenson, $345.00 per hour for work
performed in 2023, and $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. Petitioner also requests
rates between $155.00 and $175.00 per hour for work performed by her counsel’s paralegals
between 2023 and 2024.
I find that these are reasonable and in accordance with what counsel have previously been
awarded for their Vaccine Program work. I will therefore award these rates in full.
B. Reasonable Number of Hours
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, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley, 461
U.S. at 434). It is well-established that billing for administrative or clerical tasks is not permitted
in the Vaccine Program. See e.g., Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (stating
that services that are “primarily of a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as
normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates”); see also Isom v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 94-770, 2001 WL 101459, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2001)
(agreeing with Respondent that tasks such as filing and photocopying are subsumed under
overhead expenses); Walters v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2022 WL 1077311,
at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2022) (failing to award fees for the review of CM/ECF
notifications and the organization of the file); McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26 (noting that
clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them).
Upon review, I find the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel provided sufficiently
detailed descriptions for the tasks performed. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of
interim fees sought.
C. Costs
Similar to attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992). Regarding expert fees, “[t]he
question is not whether [the expert] expended the numbers of hours claimed, but whether it was
necessary or reasonable for him to do so.” Baker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-653V,
2005 WL 6122529, at *4 (Fed. Cl. June 21, 2005) (quoting Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 90-208V, 1991 WL 135015, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 5, 1991), remanded, 24.
Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (1991), aff’d, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). An expert retained by petitioners in
the Vaccine Program will only be compensated at a reasonable hourly rate, and petitioners have
the burden of demonstrating that the expert costs incurred were reasonable. Smith v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0043V, 2020 WL 1243238, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 20,
3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: https://www.cfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-rate-
fee-schedules
4

Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5
2020) (citing Ceballos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-97V, 2004 WL 784910, at *13
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 25, 2004)). When petitioners fail to substantiate a cost item, such as by
not providing appropriate documentation to explain the basis for a particular cost, special masters
have refrained from paying the cost at issue. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).
Petitioner requests a total of $55.48 in attorneys’ costs, consisting of shipping fees. These
costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner is
therefore awarded the full amount of interim costs sought.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2018), I award Petitioner
the following in interim attorneys’ fees and costs:
Interim Attorneys’ Fees Requested $34,036.50
(Reduction) -$0.00
Interim Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $34,036.50
Interim Costs Requested $55.48
(Reduction) -$0.00
Interim Costs Awarded $55.48
Total Amount Awarded $34,091.98
Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $34,091.98, representing
reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit
to Petitioner’s former counsel, Andrew Downing’s, IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the above decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D.S. Young
Herbrina D.S. Young
Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
5