VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01893
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01893
Petitioner: DAVID GARRISON
Filed: 2026-01-07
Decided: 2026-01-07
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: 
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 19506

AI-assisted case summary:
David Garrison filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 7, 2026. This decision addresses a motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs filed by his former counsel, Andrew Downing, on December 28, 2024. The motion requested $20,500.14 for fees and costs. Respondent deferred to the Special Master's determination. The Special Master found that the petition was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, satisfying the statutory criteria for an award. Citing precedent, the Special Master determined that an interim award was appropriate due to the protracted nature of the proceedings and the fact that Mr. Downing had withdrawn as counsel. The Special Master applied the lodestar approach to determine reasonable fees, awarding the requested hourly rates for Mr. Downing and Ms. Allison, and paralegal rates. A 5% reduction was applied to the requested fees due to block billing issues related to filing entries, resulting in an award of $18,896.92 in attorneys' fees. The requested costs of $608.64 for medical records and the court's filing fee were found reasonable and awarded in full. The total award for interim attorneys' fees and costs is $19,505.56, to be paid to Mr. Downing's IOLTA account.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01893-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-03
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/7/2026) regarding 39 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (gf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01893-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 7, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DAVID GARRISON, *
*
*
Petitioner, * No. 23-1893V
*
v. * Special Master Young
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner
Michael Bliley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On December 28, 2024, David Garrison (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for interim attorneys’
fees and costs, requesting a total of $20,500.14 for the work of his former counsel, Andrew
Downing. Pet’r’s Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (“Pet’r’s Mot.”) at 22, ECF No. 24.
This amount consists of $19,891.50 in fees and $608.64 in costs. Id. Petitioner has not incurred
any personal costs related to the prosecution of his petition. Id. On January 13, 2025, Respondent
filed his response to Petitioner’s motion. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF No. 26. 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 1:23-vv-01893-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 5
I. 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)
(“The delay in adjudication, to date, is due to a steady increase in the number of petitions filed
each year.”).
An entitlement decision has not been issued, and Mr. Downing is no longer the attorney of
record in this case. See Consented Mot. to Substitute Attorney, ECF No. 25. While he was on the
case, Petitioner’s fees and costs had 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 $20,500.14 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.
II. 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.
2

Case 1:23-vv-01893-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 5
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
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.2
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; and for Ms. Ann Allison, $415.00 per hour for work performed in 2023 and $435.00 per
hour for work performed in 2024. Petitioner also requests rates between $155.00 and $175.00 per
hour for work performed by his counsel’s paralegals between 2023 and 2024.
I find that Ms. Allison’s 2023-2024 rates and the 2023-2024 rates for Mr. Downing are
reasonable and in accordance with what these attorneys have previously been awarded for their
Vaccine Program work. The undersigned 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
2 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: https://www.cfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-rate-
fee-schedules
3

Case 1:23-vv-01893-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 5
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 mostly reasonable. Counsel provided
sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed. However, I find a reduction necessary
because there were several entries billed for filing. Further, most of the entries for filing were
included with other tasks. Because this constitutes block billing, it is impossible to discern how
much time was spent on compensable versus noncompensable tasks. Therefore, I find a 5%
reduction reasonable. This results in a reduction of $994.58.3
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). 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 $608.64 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of
acquisition of medical records, and the Court’s filing fee. These costs have been supported with
the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount
of costs sought.
III. 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 $19,891.50
(Reduction) -$994.58
Interim Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $18,896.92
Interim Costs Requested $608.64
(Reduction) -$0
Interim Costs Awarded $608.64
Total Amount Awarded $19,505.56
Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $19,505.56, 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.
3 $19,891.50 x 5% = $994.58.
4

Case 1:23-vv-01893-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 5
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