VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00494
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00494
Petitioner: Evelyn Newey
Filed: 2022-05-04
Decided: 2025-12-03
Vaccine: Prevnar-13
Vaccination date: 2019-06-12
Condition: tinnitus
Outcome: unclear
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Evelyn Newey filed a petition for compensation on May 4, 2022, alleging she developed tinnitus after receiving a Prevnar-13 vaccination on June 12, 2019. She filed an amended petition on November 3, 2023. The case has involved multiple filings of medical records and expert reports. The court has issued two decisions regarding interim attorneys' fees and costs. The first decision, on January 16, 2025, awarded $61,003.53 in fees and costs to her former counsel, Mr. Andrew Downing. The second decision, on December 3, 2025, awarded an additional $27,942.50 in interim fees and costs to her current counsel, Ms. Alison Haskins, and her firm, following Mr. Downing's withdrawal due to a potential conflict of interest. The case is still ongoing, with the severity requirement yet to be satisfied according to a Rule 5 Conference Order dated October 17, 2025. The ultimate outcome of the entitlement claim has not yet been determined.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00494-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-11
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/16/2025) regarding 66 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (dkj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-494V
Filed: January 16, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EVELYN NEWEY, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison Haskins, Esq., Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Roth, Special Master:
On May 4, 2022, Evelyn Newey (“Ms. Newey” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10,
et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner filed an amended petition on November 3,
2023, alleging that she developed tinnitus after receiving a Prevnar-13 vaccination on June 12,
2019. See Amended Petition (“Am. Pet.”), ECF No. 43. Petitioner now seeks an award of interim
attorneys’ fees and costs. After careful consideration, petitioner’s Motion for Interim Attorneys’
Fees is GRANTED in part for the reasons set forth below.
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, the
undersigned finds that the identified material fits within this definition, such material will be redacted from
public access.
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).
1

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 2 of 7
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed her petition on May 4, 2022. ECF No. 1. For the following several months
while in Pre-Assignment Review (“PAR”), she filed her medical records. Petitioner’s Exhibit
(“Pet. Ex.”) 1-9, ECF Nos. 6-24.
The case was assigned to the undersigned on June 15, 2023. ECF Nos. 28-29. Petitioner
filed additional medical records on June 26 and August 17, 2023. Pet. Ex. 10-11, ECF Nos. 32-33.
On September 13, 2023, respondent filed a status report identifying medical records that appeared
outstanding and stating that the statutory severity requirement did not appear to be satisfied. ECF
No. 34. Petitioner was then ordered to file the requested records and any evidence in support of
the severity requirement. ECF No. 35.
Petitioner continued to file further medical records and other evidence. Pet. Ex. 12-17, ECF
Nos. 36-49. On February 19, 2024, petitioner filed a status report confirming that all records
requested had been filed. ECF No. 50. After confirming he was satisfied the records were
complete, respondent was ordered to file his Rule 4(c) Report, which he filed on May 13, 2024.
ECF No. 54.
Petitioner filed additional medical records then an expert report and supporting medical
literature on November 11, 2024. Pet. Ex. 21-38, ECF Nos. 55-60.
On January 1, 2025, petitioner’s then-counsel, Mr. Andrew Downing, filed the instant
motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion for Interim Fees, ECF No. 61. The next day,
he filed a supplement to the motion that included the detailed invoice of petitioner’s expert witness.
Supplement, ECF No. 62.
On January 3, 2025, respondent filed his response to the motion, deferring to the
undersigned on whether the requirements for interim fees were satisfied and, if so, to determine a
reasonable award for interim fees and costs. Response, ECF No. 63. Petitioner did not file a reply.
This matter is now ripe for determination.
II. 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, petitioner’s counsel is automatically
entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. 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).
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
2

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 3 of 7
of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an initial
estimate of a reasonable attorneys’ fee” 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. 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. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl.
719, 729 (2011).
III. Discussion
A. Availability of Interim Fees
Special masters have discretion to award interim fees while the litigation is ongoing if “the
cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship” and there is “a good faith basis for the claim.”
Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F. 3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see Avera, 515
F. 3d at 1352. The court in Avera held that interim fees may be awarded “in appropriate
circumstances.” Id. at 1351. The court then listed some circumstances—cases involving
“protracted” proceedings and “costly experts”—in which it would be “particularly appropriate” to
award interim fees. Id. at 1352. But “the Federal Circuit in Avera . . . did not enunciate the universe
of litigation circumstances which would warrant an award of interim attorney’s fees,” Woods v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148, 154 (2012), and “special masters [retain] broad
discretion in determining whether to award” them, Al-Uffi ex rel. R.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 6181669, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015). In making
this determination, “the special master may consider any of the unique facts of a case.” Rehn v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 126 Fed. Cl. 86, 94 (2016).
Under the circumstances of this case, interim fees are warranted. This case has been
pending for nearly three years, which ordinarily “suffice[s] to constitute the type of
‘circumstances’ to warrant an interim fee award.” Woods, 105 Fed. Cl. at 154; see also, e.g.,
Thompson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-475V, 2018 WL 1559799, at *1 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 28, 2018) (“[I]nterim attorneys’ fees and costs are appropriate because waiting
for the conclusion of the case would place an undue hardship in petitioner”); Kottenstette v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1016V, 2017 WL 5662780, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 30,
2017) (finding two-year proceeding constituted appropriate circumstances for interim fees). Of
note, the fees requested are on behalf of petitioner’s prior counsel, Mr. Downing, who substituted
out as counsel in this case because he has been vetted for a Presidential appointment within the
Department of Health and Human Services and, as such, can no longer continue representing
petitioner in the Vaccine Program. Motion for Interim Fees at 2. Though this case is in its early
3

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 4 of 7
stages with expert reports still being filed, given the unique circumstances presented, an award of
interim fees and costs is warranted.
B. Reasonable Hourly Rates
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 attorneys’ fees
to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney’s work is done outside the forum
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. 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.
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
The attorneys at prior counsel’s firm have been recognized to practice in forum, entitling
them to commensurate rates established in McCulloch. See Rossiter v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 20-1888V, 2023 WL 3778899 at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 2, 2023); Simpson v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1124V, 2022 WL 16545527 at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 27, 2022). Petitioner requests fees in various rates of compensation for the attorneys and
paralegals who worked on her case. The rates requested are as follows:
Name 2022 2023 2024
Mr. Downing $415-$445 $445 $485
Ms. Allison $415 $415 $435
Ms. Jorgenson (formerly Van Cott) $325-$345 $345 $375
Paralegals $135-$155 $155 $175
See Motion for Interim Fees at 14, 54-59.
The majority of the requested rates have been awarded by prior Special Masters in previous
decisions. See Franceschi v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0468V, 2023 WL 4270835,
3 The 2015-2024 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 Sers., No. 09-923V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
4

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 5 of 7
at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2023); Sewell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-
1486V, 2023 WL 5054778, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 12, 2023); Madigan v. Sec'y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 14-1187V, 2023 WL 3778884, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 2, 2023);
Perekotiy on behalf of S.K. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-997V, 2020 WL 6395509,
at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 29, 2020).
However, some of the requested 2022 rates require adjustment as they are higher than what
counsel and staff have previously been awarded for the year 2022. “The Vaccine Program typically
does not award counsel increased hourly rates mid-year, especially when counsel had previously
increased their hourly rate for the year and billed time at that rate, and other special masters have
declined to award this mid-year increase.” See, e.g., Pryor v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No.
18-1288V, 2022 WL 17973236, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 28, 2022).
For work performed in 2022, the Court has awarded hourly rates of $415 for Mr. Downing,
$325 for Ms. Jorgenson (Van Cott), and $135 for paralegals. See Franceschi, No. 21-0468V, 2023
WL 4270835, at *2; Rossiter v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1888V, 2023 WL
3778899, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 2, 2023); Thoma v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 19-1848V, 2022 WL 10493481, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2022); Bostic v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 22-1118V, 2023 WL 4486158, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15,
2023). The 2022 hourly rates for Mr. Downing and paralegals4 are accordingly reduced to
correspond with what they have previously been awarded. This results in a total reduction of
$139.00.5 No other reductions are warranted.
C. 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. O’Neill v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
4 Though counsel included the higher 2022 rate ($345) for Ms. Jorgenson (Van Cott) in the body of the
motion, the billing record shows that she did not bill at this rate during 2022. See Motion for Interim Fees
at 14, 17-19. As such, a reduction related to Ms. Jorgenson’s rate is not necessary.
5 This number was reached by first adding the hours each person billed in 2022 at the increased rate. The
Motion for Interim Fees shows that Mr. Downing billed at the increased rate for a total of 1.9 hours in 2022,
and paralegals billed at the increased rate for 4.1 hours in 2022. I then multiplied the hours billed by both
the awarded hourly rate and the increased hourly rate requested in the current Motion; the difference
between the two totals reflects the amount reduced. See Motion for Interim Fees at 17-19.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 6 of 7
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. McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323,
at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at one-half 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 728-29 (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).
The overall hours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has
reviewed the billing entries and finds that the billing entries adequately describe the work done on
the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable, nor
has respondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded interim
attorneys’ fees of $46,745.00.
D. Reasonable Costs
Petitioner requests a total of $14,258.53 in costs. Motion for Interim Fees at 35, 58. The
requested costs consist of securing medical records, postage, and costs associated with petitioner’s
expert Dr. Sarah Rapoport. Id.
Petitioner requests $11,125.00 on behalf of Dr. Rapoport. This total represents 27.25 hours
of work at rate of $500 minus her $2,500.00 retainer fee. Supplement at 3. Dr. Rapoport is a board-
certified otolaryngologist and has filed one detailed expert report in this case. Motion for Interim
Fees at 15; Pet. Ex. 22. While it appears that this is Dr. Rapoport’s first case in the Vaccine
Program, the rate is in line with what has been awarded to other experts in her field. See Madigan
v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-1187V, 2021 WL 1626621 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr.
1, 2021) (awarding an hourly rate of $500 for an expert in otolaryngology). The number of hours
expended seems high considering only one report has been filed thus far, but I find the overall
request to be reasonable.6 Additionally, retainer fees for experts are regularly awarded in the
6 Because this is Dr. Rapoport’s first case in the Program, some leniency is afforded. However, Dr. Rapoport
is cautioned to refrain from block billing because it will not be accepted in the future. Block billing makes
it impossible to determine the reasonableness of the time spent on a certain task. Like attorneys’ billing,
expert invoices must describe with some degree of specificity the work that is being done in order to justify
the hours billed. Simply billing “Medical Records Review, Report Writing” for a block of hours for nearly
all hours spent on this case is inappropriate and does not satisfy the requirements of the Program. See
Supplement at 3; See, e.g., Greenhaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-2032V, 2024 WL
4044101, *1, 4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 18, 2024). To that end, attorneys must ensure that the invoices
6

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 72 Filed 02/11/25 Page 7 of 7
Program. See, e.g., Lopez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1405V, 2020 WL 7022385,
at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 3, 2020) (awarding a $3,500.00 retainer to petitioner’s expert).
Accordingly, costs associated with Dr. Rapoport are awarded in full.
The remaining costs requested by petitioner are typical in the Vaccine Program, petitioner
has provided adequate documentation to support all her requested costs, and they appear
reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. As such, petitioner is awarded $14,258.53 in costs.
IV. Total Award Summary
Based on the foregoing, petitioners’ Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is
GRANTED in part. Accordingly, I award $61,003.53, representing $46,745.00 in attorneys’ fees
and $14,258.53 in attorneys’ costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s former
counsel Mr. Andrew Downing’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. The clerk shall enter
judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED
s/Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
they submit on behalf of their experts are sufficient and meet the Program requirements in order to be
reimbursed for the costs associated with their experts.
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00494-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-29
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/03/2025) regarding 85 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (dkj) Service on parties made. Petitioner served via e-mail on 12/29/2025(ep).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 92 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-494V
Filed: December 3, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EVELYN NEWEY, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison Haskins, Esq., Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Roth, Special Master:
On May 4, 2022, Evelyn Newey (“Ms. Newey” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10,
et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner filed an amended petition on November 3,
2023, alleging that she developed tinnitus after receiving a Prevnar-13 vaccination on June 12,
2019. See Amended Petition (“Am. Pet.”), ECF No. 43.
Petitioner now seeks a second award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs requesting a total
of $27,942.50, representing $20,917.50 in attorneys’ fees and $7,025.00 in costs. After careful
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, the
undersigned finds that the identified material fits within this definition, such material will be redacted from
public access.
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).
1

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 92 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 6
consideration, petitioner’s Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED for the reasons set
forth below.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed her petition on May 4, 2022. ECF No. 1. For the following several months
while in Pre-Assignment Review (“PAR”), she filed her medical records. Petitioner’s Exhibit
(“Pet. Ex.”) 1-9, ECF Nos. 6-24.
The case was assigned to the undersigned on June 15, 2023. ECF Nos. 28-29. Petitioner
filed additional medical records on June 26 and August 17, 2023. Pet. Ex. 10-11, ECF Nos. 32-33.
On September 13, 2023, respondent filed a status report identifying medical records that appeared
outstanding and stating that the statutory severity requirement did not appear to be satisfied. ECF
No. 34. Petitioner was then ordered to file the requested records and any evidence in support of
the severity requirement. ECF No. 35.
Petitioner continued to file further medical records and other evidence. Pet. Ex. 12-17, ECF
Nos. 36-49. On February 19, 2024, petitioner filed a status report confirming that all records
requested had been filed. ECF No. 50. After confirming he was satisfied the records were
complete, respondent was ordered to file his Rule 4(c) Report, which he filed on May 13, 2024.
ECF No. 54.
Petitioner filed additional medical records then an expert report and supporting medical
literature on November 11, 2024. Pet. Ex. 21-38, ECF Nos. 55-60.
On January 1, 2025, petitioner’s former-counsel, Mr. Andrew Downing, filed the first
motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 61. On January 16, 2025, petitioner’s motion
was granted in part. ECF No. 66.
The parties exchanged additional expert reports then requested a Rule 5 Conference. ECF
Nos. 75-76, 78-79. The Rule 5 Conference was held on October 17, 2025. A lengthy Order issued
thereafter, detailing petitioner’s medical records and specifically including that petitioner has yet
to file preponderant evidence to satisfy the six-month severity requirement. See generally ECF No.
80.
On November 12, 2025, petitioner filed a second motion for interim attorneys’ fees and
costs. Motion for Interim Fees, ECF No. 81. The same day, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel, stating that petitioner and counsel have “irreconcilable differences pertaining to case
strategy which has led to deterioration of the attorney-client relationship.” ECF No. 82.
On November 14, 2025, respondent filed his response to the second motion for interim
fees, deferring to the undersigned on whether the requirements for interim fees were satisfied and,
2

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 92 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 6
if so, to determine a reasonable award for interim fees and costs. Response, ECF No. 83. Petitioner
did not file a reply.
This matter is now ripe for determination.
II. 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, petitioner’s counsel is automatically
entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. 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).
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’ fee” 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. 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. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl.
719, 729 (2011).
III. Discussion
A. Availability of Interim Fees
Special masters have discretion to award interim fees while the litigation is ongoing if “the
cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship” and there is “a good faith basis for the claim.”
Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F. 3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see Avera, 515
F. 3d at 1352. The court in Avera held that interim fees may be awarded “in appropriate
circumstances.” Id. at 1351. The court then listed some circumstances—cases involving
“protracted” proceedings and “costly experts”—in which it would be “particularly appropriate” to
award interim fees. Id. at 1352. But “the Federal Circuit in Avera . . . did not enunciate the universe
of litigation circumstances which would warrant an award of interim attorney’s fees,” Woods v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148, 154 (2012), and “special masters [retain] broad
discretion in determining whether to award” them, Al-Uffi ex rel. R.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 6181669, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015). In making
3

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 92 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 6
this determination, “the special master may consider any of the unique facts of a case.” Rehn v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 126 Fed. Cl. 86, 94 (2016).
Under the circumstances, interim fees are warranted. Though petitioner was recently
awarded interim fees, that request was on behalf of prior counsel, whereas this request is on behalf
of petitioner’s attorney who assumed responsibility for the case after prior counsel’s withdrawal.
In light of counsel’s pending motion to withdraw, I find it appropriate to award petitioner
attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of Ms. Haskins and her firm. See Weiss on behalf of A.W. v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 24-546V, 2025 WL 2304491, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 9, 2025) (finding that an award of interim fees is warranted “almost wholly in light of counsel's
withdrawal” and that there were no “identifiable reasonable basis issues” at this point in the
proceeding). Additionally, respondent has not raised any specific objection to doing so and has
rather deferred to my discretion. See Response.
B. Reasonable Hourly Rates
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 attorneys’ fees
to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney’s work is done outside the forum
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. 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.
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 hourly rates of $525 for Ms. Haskins and $195 for the paralegals for
their work in 2025. See Pet. Ex. 57. These rates have been awarded in prior cases. See, e.g.,
Calzado v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 24-1466V, 2025 WL 2642128, at *1 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 15, 2025). Thus, I find them reasonable.
3 The 2015-2025 Fee Schedules can be accessed at https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-
hourly-rate-fee-schedules. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision
in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Sers., No. 09-923V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 1, 2015).
4

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 92 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 6
C. 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. 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. McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323,
at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at one-half 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 728-29 (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 billing records, the billing entries adequately describe the work, and
the amount of time spent reasonably corresponds with that work. None of the entries appear
objectionable, nor has respondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner
is awarded interim attorneys’ fees in the amount requested.
D. Reasonable Costs
Petitioner requests a total of $7,025.00 in costs on behalf of her expert Dr. Rapoport, who
charged at an hourly rate of $500. Pet. Ex. 57 at 9-11. Dr. Rapoport’s hourly rate was awarded in
the first decision on interim fees in this matter. See ECF No. 66. Thus, I again find it reasonable.
Additionally, I appreciate counsel’s attention to the footnote in the first decision on interim fees
addressing Dr. Rapoport’s billing. Dr. Rapoport’s invoices submitted in the instant motion are
sufficiently detailed so as to allow for review of the reasonableness of the time spent; I find that
time to be reasonable. Thus, the costs associated with Dr. Rapoport are awarded in full.
5

Case 1:22-vv-00494-UNJ Document 92 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 6
IV. Total Award Summary
Based on the foregoing, petitioners’ Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is
GRANTED. Accordingly, I award a total of $27,942.50, representing $20,917.50 in attorneys’
fees and $7,025.00 in costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED
s/Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
6