VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01562
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01562
Petitioner: Patricia Santiago
Filed: 2021-07-09
Decided: 2025-01-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-16
Condition: idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP)
Outcome: unclear
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Patricia Santiago filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that she suffered idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 16, 2019. The case is currently in the interim attorneys' fees and costs phase. On December 18, 2024, the Special Master awarded Patricia Santiago $81,098.66 in interim attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting a higher hourly rate for her expert, Dr. Omid Akbari, and arguing that the rate was commensurate with his expertise and had been awarded by other special masters. Respondent deferred to the Special Master's judgment. On January 13, 2025, the Special Master denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, finding that the interest of justice did not warrant reconsideration of Dr. Akbari's rate and that other special masters' decisions were not binding. The Special Master also noted that she would reconsider Dr. Akbari's rate in the final fees and costs application and reiterated concerns about excessive billing by Dr. Akbari.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01562-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/18/2024) regarding 64 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 18, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PATRICIA SANTIAGO, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 21-1562V
*
v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil PA, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Neil Bhargava, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On July 9, 2021, Patricia Santiago (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act,” “the Program,” or “the
Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018)2 alleging that she suffered idiopathic
thrombocytopenia purpura (“ITP”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
October 16, 2019. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1).
1 Because this Decision 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 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 (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), 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.
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-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the
Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
1

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 7
On April 22, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs,
requesting compensation for the attorneys who worked on her case. Petitioner’s Application for
Interim Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Pet. App.”), filed Apr. 22, 2024 (ECF No. 53). Petitioner’s
request can be summarized as follows:
Attorneys’ Fees – $29,958.10
Attorneys’ Costs – $58,811.48
Petitioner thus requests a total of $88,769.58. Respondent filed his response on May 29,
2024, stating that he “defers to the [S]pecial [M]aster to determine whether or not [P]etitioner
has met the legal standard for an interim fees and costs award.” Respondent’s Response to Pet.
Mot. (“Resp. Response”), filed May 29, 2024, at 2 (ECF No. 57). Petitioner did not file a reply.
This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons discussed below, the
undersigned GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s motion and awards $81,098.66 in attorneys’ fees
and costs.
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. § 15(e)(1). When compensation
is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable 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. If a special master has not yet determined
entitlement, she may still 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). Such awards “are particularly
appropriate in cases where proceedings are protracted and costly experts must be retained.” Id.
Similarly, it is proper for a special master to award interim fees and costs “[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).
The claim appears at this point to have been brought in good faith and built on a
reasonable basis. Moreover, the undersigned finds that an award of interim attorneys’ fees and
costs is appropriate here where there are significant expert fees to be paid.
A. Attorneys’ Fees
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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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
2

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 7
special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent
and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 &
Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991), rev’d on other grounds & 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. Hourly Rates
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Ms. Laura
Levenberg, $275.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $350.00 per hour for work performed
in 2022, $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $400.00 per hour for work performed
in 2024; for Mr. Max Muller, $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2022; and for Ms. Leigh
Finfer, $275.00 per hour for work performed in 2023. Petitioner also requests rates between
$125.00 and $177.00 per hour for work of their counsel’s paralegals performed between 2020
and 2024.
The undersigned finds these rates consistent with what counsel have previously been
awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and finds them to be reasonable herein. See, e.g.,
Guilliod v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2299V, 2024 WL 4930736, at *2 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Nov. 5, 2024); Askins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1907V, 2024 WL
4930691, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 5, 2024); Watts v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-2223V, 2024 WL 4930406, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 6, 2024). Thus, the undersigned
will award the rates requested.
ii. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760
(1989); Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009). Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and costs
claimed. Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468 at *8.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 7
The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds the total number of
hours billed to be largely reasonable. However, the undersigned finds a small reduction
necessary.
Mr. Erik Pavlacsek and Ms. Tereza Pavlacsek billed for e-filing documents 19 times, for
a total of $381.40.3 See Pet. App. at 7-17. Mr. Pavlacsek and Ms. Pavlacsek also billed 9 times,
for a total of $2,248.40, for preparing exhibits for filing.4 See id. Additionally, Ms. Levenberg
and Ms. Finfer billed $207.505 for “[d]irect[ing] paralegal” to file documents. See id.
It is well known in the Vaccine Program that billing for some administrative tasks (e.g.,
filing), even at a paralegal rate, is not permitted. 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”);
Paul v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1221V, 2023 WL 1956423, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 13, 2023) (“Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who
performs them.”). This is not a new issue to the Muller Brazil firm. See, e.g., Goodwin v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1676V, 2022 WL 6616738, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept.
13, 2022); Crawford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-398V, 2022 WL 17849062, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 22, 2022); Pavlicek v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1573V,
2022 WL 4115663, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 12, 2022). Additionally, the undersigned
has warned counsel numerous times against billing for noncompensable administrative tasks.
See, e.g., Le v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1078V, 2023 WL 2054467, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 17, 2023); Guilliod, 2024 WL 4930736, at *2; Askins, 2024 WL 4930691,
at *2; Watts, 2024 WL 4930406, at *1. As such, the undersigned will reduce Petitioner’s fees
request by $2,837.30.
The undersigned also cautions counsel, as the undersigned and other special masters have
previously done, against numerous individuals billing for time spent reviewing the same
documents. See, e.g., Crawford, 2022 WL 17849062, at *2; Le, 2023 WL 2054467, at *3. For
example, after the case was filed, Mr. Pavlacsek and Ms. Levenberg both billed for “review” or
“memo to file” for the activation order, reassignment orders, scheduling order, and notice of
appearance from Respondent. Pet. Mot. at 7. Then, both Mr. Pavlacsek and Ms. Levenberg
3 These entries are dated July 9, 2021 ($25.00), July 13, 2021 ($16.00 and $16.00), April 4, 2022
($16.00), May 6, 2022 ($16.00), July 25, 2022 ($16.00), September 8, 2022 ($32.00), September
13, 2022 ($16.00), December 1, 2022 ($16.00), February 16, 2023 ($17.70), April 13, 2023
($17.70), April 28, 2023 ($35.40), May 9, 2023 ($17.70), May 31, 2023 ($17.70), October 10,
2023 ($17.70), December 28, 2023 ($17.70), March 21, 2024 ($17.70), March 26, 2024 ($17.70),
and April 4, 2024 ($35.40).
4 These entries are dated July 9, 2021 ($125.00), April 4, 2022 ($48.00), September 8, 2022
($480.00), September 13, 2022 ($144.00), April 28, 2023 ($831.90), May 9, 2023 ($35.40),
March 21, 2024 ($53.10), March 26, 2024 ($35.40), and April 4, 2024 ($495.60).
5 These entries are dated April 4, 2022 ($35.00), May 6, 2022 ($35.00), July 25, 2022 ($35.00),
February 16, 2023 ($37.50), April 13, 2023 ($37.50), and October 10, 2023 ($27.50).
4

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 5 of 7
billed for “review” or “memo to file” for the notice regarding the statutory requirement and
scheduling order following the Rule 4(c) report in March 2022. Id. at 7-8. This duplicative
billing practice has continued throughout litigation. See, e.g., id. at 16 (duplicative billing entries
from Mr. Pavlacsek and Ms. Levenberg on March 25, 2024 for reviewing the prehearing order).
Id. at 16. Given the amount of duplicative entries, the undersigned finds a further reduction of
3% reasonable and appropriate. See Le, 2023 WL 2054467, at *3 (reducing fees by 3% for the
same issues). This results in a further reduction of $813.62.6 Petitioner is therefore awarded a
total of $26,307.187 in attorneys’ fees.
B. Attorneys’ Costs
Petitioner requests a total of $58,811.48 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of
acquiring medical records, the filing fee, shipping costs, and for work performed by Petitioner’s
experts, Dr. Abhimanyu Ghose and Dr. Omid Akbari. The undersigned has reviewed the
requested costs and finds them to be largely reasonable and supported with appropriate
documentation.
Petitioner requests $13,700.00 for work performed by Dr. Ghose, which is 19 hours of
work performed in 2022 at a rate of $550.00 and 5 hours of work performed in 2023 at a rate of
$650.00 per hour. Pet. App. at 31-32. Other hematologists in the Vaccine Program have been
awarded less than what is requested by Petitioner and Dr. Ghose. See Bryce v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 17-1832V, 2023 WL 5666165, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2023)
(awarding $400.00 per hour to hematologist with over 30 years of experience); Ferguson v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1737V, 2022 WL 1467655, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 12, 2022) (awarding $500.00 per hour to pediatric hematologist/oncologist with over 10
years of experience). An hourly rate of $650.00 may be considered high in the Vaccine
Program, however, the undersigned finds the full requested amount of $13,700.00 to be
reasonable. Thus, the undersigned determines $13,700.00 is a reasonable expert fee and will
award it in full.8
Petitioner also requests $44,220.00 for work performed by immunologist Dr. Akbari at a
rate of $550.00 per hour. Pet. App. at 33-36. However, Dr. Akbari has consistently been
awarded a rate of $500.00 per hour for his work in the Program. See Bristow v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 19-457V, 2022 WL 17821111, at *5-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 15, 2022)
(listing cases in which Dr. Akbari has been awarded $500.00 per hour); Walters v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2022 WL 1077311 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2022)
(same). Moreover, the undersigned has previously found that $550.00 per hour is excessive for
Dr. Akbari's work, and instead compensating him at $500.00 per hour. See, e.g., Carroll ex rel.
6 $29,958.10 - $2,837.30 = $27,120.80. $27,120.80 x 0.03 = $813.624. The undersigned will
round down to $813.62.
7 $29,958.10 - $2,837.30 - $813.62 = $26,307.18.
8 The undersigned does not make any finding regarding the reasonableness of Dr. Ghose’s rate at
this time.
5

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 6 of 7
J.W. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1125V, 2023 WL 2771034, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 4, 2023); Wolf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-308V, 2022 WL 10075190,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 28, 2022); M.M. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-
583V, 2022 WL 2070714, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2022); Price v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-1472V, 2020 WL 3866890, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2020).
Petitioner provided no evidence to support a higher rate of $550.00. As such, the undersigned
finds that $500.00 per hour, as has been consistently awarded to Dr. Akbari, to be an appropriate
hourly rate.9 This results in a reduction of $4,020.00.10
In this case, Dr. Akbari provided two expert reports, both 21 pages. For his first expert
report, filed in April 2023, he billed 45 hours, totaling $24,750.00. For his second report, filed in
September 2024, he billed 35.4 hours, for a total of $19,470.00. The undersigned finds this
amount of time to likely be excessive for a case that has not gone to hearing yet.
Other special masters have found Dr. Akbari’s billing practices to be excessive or vague
and accordingly reduced his billing by 20%. See, e.g., Nieves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 18-1602V, 2023 WL 7131801, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2023) (finding Dr.
Akbarr’s billing of 164.20 hours to constitute “an excessive amount of time for a case that did
not go to hearing . . . [and] caution[ing] Dr. Akbari and counsel to endeavor to employ better
billing practices in the future”); Reinhardt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1257V,
2021 WL 2373818, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2021) (finding Dr. Akbari’s billing to be
“well in excess of the time spent by other experts in cases of comparable complexity”). Other
special masters have cautioned Dr. Akbari against excessive billing and encouraged him to
“endeavor to reduce the number of hours billed henceforth.” Bristow, 2022 WL 17821111, at *5
(finding that Dr. Akbari spent an “unusually large expenditure of time for a case that has not yet
had a hearing”); see also Romero v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1625V, 2023 WL
2598014, at *5-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 22, 2023) (finding that Dr. Akbari’s billing of 109
hours to prepare two reports constituted a “large expenditure of time for a flu/GBS case that has
not yet gone to hearing”).
It is difficult to evaluate Dr. Akbari’s reports and billing practice before the case has
proceeded to hearing. However, the undersigned finds a preliminary impression of excessive
billing, especially in comparison to Petitioner’s other expert. The undersigned does not reduce
Dr. Akbari’s billed hours for excessiveness here but reserves the right to do so on final fees.
II. CONCLUSION
Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate
Petitioner and her counsel as follows:
9 The undersigned previously expressed interest in reconsidering Dr. Akbari’s rate in the future,
but will not do so here given the excessive time spent on this case before the case has proceeding
to hearing. See Carroll, 2023 WL 2771034, at *6 n.18.
10 80.4 hours x ($550.00 - $500.00) = $4,020.00.
6

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 74 Filed 01/13/25 Page 7 of 7
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $29,958.10
(Total Reduction from Billing Hours) -$3,650.92
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $26,307.18
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $58,811.48
(Reduction of Costs) -$4,020.00
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $54,791.48
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $81,098.66
Accordingly, the undersigned awards $81,098.66 in interim attorneys’ fees and
costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ms.
Levenberg.
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.11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
11 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.
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01562-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-07
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER (Originally filed: 1/13/2025) regarding 73 Order on Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (mjf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 88 Filed 02/07/25 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 13, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PATRICIA SANTIAGO, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 21-1562V
*
v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Motion
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * for Reconsideration.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil PA, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Neil Bhargava, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION1
On July 9, 2021, Patricia Santiago (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act,” “the Program,” or “the
Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018)2 alleging that she suffered idiopathic
thrombocytopenia purpura (“ITP”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
October 16, 2019. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1).
1 Because this Order 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 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 Order 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.
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-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Order to individual sections of the
Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
1

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 88 Filed 02/07/25 Page 2 of 4
On April 22, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs,
requesting compensation for the attorneys who worked on her case. Petitioner’s Application for
Interim Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Pet. App.”), filed Apr. 22, 2024 (ECF No. 53). Respondent
filed his response on May 29, 2024. Respondent’s Response to Pet. App., filed May 29, 2024
(ECF No. 57). Petitioner did not file a reply. The undersigned issued a Decision on December
18, 2024, awarding Petitioner $81,098.66 in interim attorneys’ fees and costs. Decision on
Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs dated Dec. 18, 2024 (ECF No. 64).
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2024. Pet. Motion for
Reconsideration (“Pet. Mot.”), filed Dec. 27, 2024 (ECF No. 67). Petitioner’s motion requests
an adjustment to the costs awarded. Id. at 1. Specifically, Petitioner requests the undersigned
award a higher rate of $550.00 per hour for work performed by their expert, Dr. Omid Akbari.
Id. Petitioner argues that Dr. Akbari has significant prior experience in vaccine matters as an
expert in immunology and a rate of $550.00 per hour “is commensurate with that expertise.” Id.
at 3-4. Additionally, Petitioner notes Dr. Akbari has been awarded this rate by other special
masters. Id. at 4. Lastly, Petitioner cites cases where other experts have been awarded $550.00
per hour or higher for their work. Id. at 4-5.
Respondent filed a response on January 2, 2025. Respondent’s Response to Pet. Mot.,
filed Jan. 2, 2025 (ECF No. 68). Respondent defers to the Special Master’s judgment on
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Id. at 1. Respondent notes the undersigned previously
found $550.00 per hour is excessive for Dr. Akbari’s work, as noted in her decision, and that she
indicated she would not increase his rate here “given the excessive time spent on this case” prior
to hearing. Id. Lastly, Respondent documents that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration did
not address the undersigned’s concerns of excessive billing by Dr. Akbari. Id.
Petitioner did not file a reply.
I. DISCUSSION
Vaccine Rule 10(e) governs motions for reconsideration of a special master’s decision
and provides that “[e]ither party may file a motion for reconsideration of the special master’s
decision within 21 days after the issuance of the decision.” Vaccine Rule 10(e)(1). Special
masters have the discretion to grant a motion for reconsideration if to do so would be in the
“interest of justice.” Vaccine Rule 10(e)(3). It is within the special master’s discretion to decide
what the “interest of justice” is in a given case. R.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
632V, 2010 WL 5572074, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 10, 2011); Kerrigan v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 16-270V, 2016 WL 7575240, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 22, 2016).
The undersigned does not find the “interest of justice” warrants reconsideration of Dr.
Akbari’s rate for the reasons previously set forth in the Decision on interim attorneys’ fees and
costs.
To summarize, the undersigned noted she has previously found that $550.00 per hour is
excessive for Dr. Akbari’s work, and has instead compensated him at $500.00 per hour,
consistent with other decisions from other special masters. See, e.g., Carroll ex rel. J.W. v. Sec’y
2

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 88 Filed 02/07/25 Page 3 of 4
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1125V, 2023 WL 2771034, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 4,
2023); Wolf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-308V, 2022 WL 10075190, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 28, 2022); M.M. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-583V, 2022
WL 2070714, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2022); Price v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 18-1472V, 2020 WL 3866890, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2020); see also Bristow
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-457V, 2022 WL 17821111, at *5-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Nov. 15, 2022) (listing cases in which Dr. Akbari has been awarded $500.00 per hour);
Walters v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2022 WL 1077311 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2022) (same).
Petitioner provided no evidence to support a higher rate of $550.00 in her interim fees
and costs application, and here, Petitioner has only reiterated Dr. Akbari’s accomplishments as
seen on his CV, which is filed in this matter, and noted he has been granted this higher rate by
other special masters. Although other special masters may have awarded Dr. Akbari higher
hourly rates, decisions by other special masters are not binding on the undersigned. See Hanlon
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998), aff’d, 191 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
The undersigned also indicated that she has previously expressed interest in reconsidering
Dr. Akbari’s rate in the future, but chose not to do so here given the excessive time spent on this
case before the case has proceeding to hearing. See Carroll, 2023 WL 2771034, at *6 n.18. The
undersigned will reconsider Dr. Akbari’s rate in Petitioner’s final fees and costs application
following adjudication of this case.
Lastly, the undersigned noted other special masters have found Dr. Akbari’s billing
practices to be excessive or vague and accordingly reduced his billing by 20%. See, e.g., Nieves
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1602V, 2023 WL 7131801, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 2, 2023) (finding Dr. Akbari’s billing of 164.20 hours to constitute “an excessive amount of
time for a case that did not go to hearing . . . [and] caution[ing] Dr. Akbari and counsel to
endeavor to employ better billing practices in the future”); Reinhardt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 17-1257V, 2021 WL 2373818, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2021) (finding
Dr. Akbari’s billing to be “well in excess of the time spent by other experts in cases of
comparable complexity”). While others, including the undersigned, have cautioned Dr. Akbari
against excessive billing and encouraged him to “endeavor to reduce the number of hours billed
henceforth.” Bristow, 2022 WL 17821111, at *5 (finding that Dr. Akbari spent an “unusually
large expenditure of time for a case that has not yet had a hearing”); see also Romero v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1625V, 2023 WL 2598014, at *5-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 22,
2023) (finding that Dr. Akbari’s billing of 109 hours to prepare two reports constituted a “large
expenditure of time for a flu/GBS case that has not yet gone to hearing”).
As the undersigned previously explained, she preliminarily found Dr. Akbari’s billing
here excessive, especially in comparison to Petitioner’s other expert. However, the undersigned
did not reduce Dr. Akbari’s billed hours for excessiveness and reserved the right to do so on final
fees.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01562-UNJ Document 88 Filed 02/07/25 Page 4 of 4
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
4