VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01981
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01981
Petitioner: Brookelyn Hart
Filed: 2026-01-14
Decided: 2026-01-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-11-29
Condition: autonomic dysfunction, including Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome and Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 27435

AI-assisted case summary:
Brookelyn Hart, who later became of age, filed a petition on January 14, 2026, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on November 29, 2022, caused her to suffer symptoms of autonomic dysfunction, including Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome and Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome. This decision addresses a motion for interim attorney's fees and costs filed due to the withdrawal of prior counsel. The court found that an interim award was appropriate because the evidence raised a question as to causation warranting an entitlement hearing, and the withdrawal of counsel provided reasonable grounds for the award. The court reviewed the requested fees and costs, applying the lodestar method and considering reasonable hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals based on their experience and the forum rule. The court also reviewed the requested costs, including expert fees for Dr. Miglis and miscellaneous litigation expenses, finding them reasonable and substantiated. Ultimately, the court granted the motion and awarded a total of $27,435.85 in interim attorney's fees and costs to be paid to Brookelyn Hart's former counsel.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01981-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-17
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/14/2026) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ers) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01981-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1981V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BROOKELYN HART, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: January 14, 2026
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nathan Joseph Marchese, Siri & Glimstad LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On November 14, 2023, Bridget Hart, on behalf of Brookelyn Hart., filed a petition seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine
Program”).2 Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1. Brookelyn Hart later became of age and was appointed as
the Petitioner in the case. Order, dated March 26, 2025 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner claims that she
suffered symptoms of autonomic dysfunction, including Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia
Syndrome and Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome, as a result of an influenza vaccine
administered on November 29, 2022. Petition at 1.
On December 28, 2024, a Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees and Costs was filed in this
case due to the withdrawal of prior counsel, Andrew Downing, Esq. Motion for Interim Attorney’s
Fees and Costs, dated Dec. 28, 2024 (ECF No. 26) (“Interim Fees Mot.”). It is the first fees request
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:23-vv-01981-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 6
in this case, and Petitioner requests a total of $27,471.85, reflecting $20,388.50 in attorneys’ fees
and $7,133.35 in costs. Interim Fees Mot. at 11.
Respondent reacted to the fees request on April 11, 2025. See Response, dated Apr. 11,
2025 (ECF No. 32) (“Resp.”). Respondent defers to my discretion as to whether Petitioner has met
the legal and statutory requirements for an interim fees and costs award, as well as the calculation
of the amount to be awarded. Id. at 1–2.
For the reasons set forth below, I hereby grant Petitioner’s motion, awarding fees and costs
in the total amount of $27,435.85.
ANALYSIS
I. Requests for Interim Attorney’s Fees and Costs
I have in prior decisions discussed at length the standards applicable to determining
whether to award fees on an interim basis. Auch v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-673V,
2016 WL 3944701, at *6–9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 20, 2016); Al-Uffi v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 6181669, at *5–9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015). It is well-
established that a decision on entitlement is not required before fees or costs incurred to that point
in time, but prior to the case’s full resolution, may be awarded. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013); see also
Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 675 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Avera v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But because no entitlement
determination has been (usually) made at the time an interim award is sought, the party requesting
such an award must meet the reasonable basis standard applicable to literally “unsuccessful” cases.
Avera, 515 F.3d at 1352.
While there is no presumption of entitlement to interim fees and costs awards (rendered in
advance of a case’s final determination), special masters may in their discretion make such awards,
and often do so. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33
F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Requests for interim costs are subject to the same standards. Perreira,
27 Fed. Cl. at 34; Presault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667, 670 (2002); Fester, 2013 WL
5367670, at *16. Criteria that I have found to be important in determining whether an interim
award should be permitted include: 1) if the amount of fees requested exceeds $30,00.00; 2) where
expert costs are requested, if the aggregate amount is more than $15,00.00; or 3) if the case has
been pending for more than 18 months. See Knorr v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-
1169V, 2017 WL 2461375 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 17, 2017). In addition, the withdrawal or
substitution of counsel is often deemed reasonable grounds in and of itself for an interim award
(except where the special master has foundational concerns about the claim’s reasonable basis).
See e.g., Woods v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148, 154 (2012).
2

Case 1:23-vv-01981-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 6
For fee requests generally, counsel must submit 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 his experience and judgment,
[is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. Furthermore, the 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 petitioner’s fee application
when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
The Petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and
the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The
Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of
the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude
from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer
in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
I find an interim award is appropriate in this case. The evidence provided in this case is
enough to raise a question as to causation and warrant an entitlement hearing, and Respondent has
not argued against a finding of reasonable basis. Therefore, reasonable basis has been met. In
addition, withdrawal of counsel is a reasonable occasion for a fees award—especially when
reasonable basis is not at issue.
II. Calculation of Fees
Only “reasonable” fees or costs may be awarded in the Program. Determining the
appropriate amount of the fees award is a two-part process. The first part involves application of
the lodestar method - “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times
a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). The second part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down
to take relevant factors into consideration. Id. at 1348. This standard for calculating a fee award is
considered applicable in most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute. Hensely,
461 U.S. at 429–37.
An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the
proper hourly rate to be awarded on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C.,
for Vaccine Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there
3

Case 1:23-vv-01981-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 6
is a substantial difference in rates (the so-called “Davis” exception). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348
(citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges
for attorneys with different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine
Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at
*19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
Petitioner requests the following rates for her various attorneys, based on the years work
was performed:
2023 2024
Andrew Downing $445 $485
(Attorney)
Ann Allison $415 $435
(Attorney)
Courtney Jorgenson n/a $375
(Attorney)
Danielle Avery $155 $175
(Paralegal)
Alex Malvick $155 $175
(Paralegal)
Samantha Perez n/a $175
(Paralegal)
Interim Fees Mot. at 14.
Mr. Downing, Ms. Allison, and Ms. Jorgenson practice in Phoenix, Arizona—a jurisdiction
that has been deemed “in forum,” and thus entitling them to commensurate rates established in
McCulloch. See Rich v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-742V, 2017 WL 1435879 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 28, 2017). The hourly rates requested for the attorneys and their associated
paralegals for time billed in 2023 and 2024 are reasonable and consistent with our prior
determinations and will therefore be adopted herein. Cracraft v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-0562V, 2024 WL 2992939 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 9, 2024); see also, Fiorello v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1869V, 2025 WL 2528894 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 6, 2025).
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner's request and have found one
instance of a mid-year fee increase that needs to be addressed. Alex Malvick’s 2023 rate is $155
an hour. Interim Fees Mot. at 14. However, On November 17, 2023, Mr. Malvick charged $175
an hour. ECF No. 26-1 at 5. It is likely that this was a clerical error as Mr. Malvick’s the next time
entry (November 20, 2023) was reduced back to $155 an hour. Regardless of whether this was a
4

Case 1:23-vv-01981-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/17/26 Page 5 of 6
mistake or not, it is not the practice of the OSM to afford mid-year rate increases to attorneys under
any circumstances. Accordingly, I reduce this time entry by $36.00 to reflect a rate of $155 per
hour.3
Beyond this one instance of a mid-year increase, all attorneys’ and paralegal’s requested
hourly rates are reasonable and in line with what has previously been awarded. I find no further
reason to adjust any hourly rates.
III. Calculation of Attorney’s Costs
Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must
also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Presault, 52 Fed. Cl. at 670;
Perreira, 27 Fed. Cl. at 34. Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and
expert time incurred while working on a case. Fester, 2013 WL 5367670, at *16. 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 seeks $7,133.35 in outstanding costs, which includes $6,250.00 for Dr. Miglis’s
expert fees and $833.35 in miscellaneous litigation costs, like medical record retrieval costs,
mailing costs, and filing fees. ECF No. 26-1 at 9. Dr. Miglis’s charges a rate of $500.00 an hour
and has submitted an itemized receipt of his time. Id. at 27. Dr. Miglis has been awarded his
requested hourly rate by other special masters, and I see no reason to disturb his request. See
Lizalde v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1791V, 2025 WL 2223405, at *6 (Fed. Cl. July
8, 2025); Coons v. Sec'y of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 20-1067V, 2022 WL 2294213, at *7; see
also Walker v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-543V, 2019 WL 7288770, at *4 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Dec. 2, 2019). I find the overall number of hours expended by Dr. Miglis to be
reasonable, and I will award his expert costs in full.
Similarly, the Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all other claimed costs.
See ECF No. 26-1 at 9–26. The costs requested herein are typical in Program cases and were
reasonably incurred in this matter, and Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or
amounts sought. Therefore, I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining
the propriety of an interim fees award, I GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for an Interim Award of
3 Determined by: (1.8 hours x $175 hourly rate) – (1.8 hours x $155 hourly rate) = $36. ECF No. 26-1 at 5.
5

Case 1:23-vv-01981-UNJ Document 46 Filed 02/17/26 Page 6 of 6
Attorney’s Fees and Costs. I award a total of $27,435.85. (reflecting $20,352.50 in fees, and
$7,133.35 in 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 this Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
6