VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02161
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02161
Petitioner: Noor Alhayadir
Filed: 2023-12-21
Decided: 2026-03-10
Vaccine: HPV and Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-12-21
Condition: myelitis
Outcome: unclear
Award amount USD: 36570

AI-assisted case summary:
Zahraa Alhroub, on behalf of her child Noor Alhayadir, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 21, 2023. Petitioner alleges that Noor Alhayadir suffered post-vaccination myelitis after receiving human papillomavirus and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines on December 21, 2020. The case is currently pending. Petitioner's former counsel withdrew on December 26, 2024, and new counsel filed a motion for an interim award of attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner requested a total of $36,570.74, reflecting $35,016.00 in fees and $1,554.74 in costs. Respondent deferred to the court's discretion regarding the award. Chief Special Master Corcoran granted the motion, awarding the full requested amount of $36,570.74 in interim fees and costs, finding the request reasonable and appropriate given the withdrawal of prior counsel and the lack of concerns regarding the claim's reasonable basis.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02161-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-09
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/10/2026) regarding 52 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (jjr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-02161-UNJ Document 60 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-2161V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * Chief Special Master Corcoran
ZAHRAA ALHROUB, *
on behalf of her child, *
NOOR ALHAYADIR, *
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. * March 10, 2026
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Christopher Williams, Siri & Glimstad LLP, New York, NY, for petitioner.
Crystal Fialkowski, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION GRANTING INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On December 21, 2023, Zahraa Alhroub, on behalf of her child, Noor Alhayadir, filed a
petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petition
(“Pet.”) (ECF No. 1); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (the “Vaccine Act”).2 Petitioner alleges that
Ms. Alhayadir suffered post-vaccination myelitis after receipt of human papillomavirus and
tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines on December 21, 2020. Pet. at Preamble.
Resolution of the matter remains pending.3
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).
3 This matter was until recently before Special Master Gowen, who retired earlier this month. It has since been
transferred to my docket.

Case 1:23-vv-02161-UNJ Document 60 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 6
Petitioner has now filed a motion for an interim award of attorney’s fees and costs. Interim
Fees Motion (“Int. Fees Mot.”) (ECF No. 30). It is the first fees request in this case, and is
occasioned by the withdrawal of her prior counsel on December 26, 2024. Motion to Substitute
Attorney, dated Dec. 26, 2024 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner requests a total of $36,570.74, reflecting
$35,016.00 in fees, plus $1,554.74 in costs. Interim Fees Mot. at 56.
Respondent reacted to the fees request on January 3, 2025. Response, dated Jan. 3, 2025
(“Resp.”) (ECF No. 34). Respondent defers to my discretion as to whether the statutory
requirements for a fees and costs award are met herein, and if so, the calculation of the amount to
be awarded. Resp. at 2. Petitioner did not file a reply.
For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT Petitioners’ motion, awarding fees
and costs in the total amount of $36,570.74.
I. Requests for Interim Attorney’s Fees and Costs
In prior decisions, I have discussed the standards governing the award of interim attorney’s
fees and costs. Auch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-673V, 2016 WL 3944701, at *6–
9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 20, 2016); Al-Uffi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-956V,
2015 WL 6181669, at *5–9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015). It is well established that an
entitlement determination is not required before fees or costs incurred to that point may be awarded
on an interim basis, prior to the case’s full resolution. Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
609 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-243V,
2013 WL 5367670, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013); see also Cloer v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 675 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, because entitlement typically has not yet been
determined at the time an interim award is sought, the requesting party must satisfy the reasonable
basis standard applicable to unsuccessful cases. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1352.
While there is no presumption that fees and costs will be awarded prior to a case’s final
determination, special masters have discretion to make such awards, and often do so. Perreira v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Requests for interim fees and costs are subject to the same general standards governing
final fee awards. 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) whether the amount of fees
requested exceeds $30,00.00; 2) whether expert costs are requested, particularly where the
aggregate amount exceeds $15,00.00; and 3) whether the case has been pending for more than
eighteen months. See Knorr v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1169V, 2017 WL
2461375 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 17, 2017). In addition, withdrawal or substitution of counsel
2

Case 1:23-vv-02161-UNJ Document 60 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 6
is often considered reasonable grounds, in itself, for awarding interim fees and costs (absent
foundational concerns regarding the claim's reasonable basis). See e.g., Woods v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148, 154 (2012).
As with any fee request, counsel must submit contemporaneous and specific billing records
identifying the services performed, the number of hours expended, and the individual performing
the work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel
should not include hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” 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)). 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. Moreover, a
special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from any objections raised by respondent
and without providing a petitioner notice or opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health
& Human 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 &
Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
Petitioners bear the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the
expenses incurred. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991).
Petitioners “should present adequate proof [of the requested attorney’s fees and costs] at the time
of the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioners’ 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, primarily in light of prior counsel’s
withdrawal from the case. Although it remains unclear whether the underlying claim will
ultimately succeed, the record does not presently raise concerns regarding reasonable basis
(meaning a lack of some objective evidence supporting the claim), and Respondent has not argued
to the contrary. Accordingly, I will allow an interim award.
II. Calculations 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
3

Case 1:23-vv-02161-UNJ Document 60 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 6

Case 1:23-vv-02161-UNJ Document 60 Filed 04/09/26 Page 5 of 6
The attorneys at former counsel’s firm have been recognized to practice in forum, thus,
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); Hart
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 23-1981V, 2026 WL 458779, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 14,
2026); Bhatia on behalf of S.B. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 24-946V, 2026 WL
459253, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 15, 2026). These rates are consistent with what has been awarded to
counsel, associates, and paralegals in the past and are in line with the approved rates contained in
the Fee Schedule. See e.g., Lucas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1525V, 2025 WL
1158901, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 25, 2025); Cracraft v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-
0562V, 2024 WL 2992939, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 9, 2024); Hart, 2026 WL 458779, at
*2; Bhatia, 2026 WL 459253, at *2.
Respondent does not object to the reasonableness of the requested hourly rates or the
number of hours expended. Upon review, I find no basis to reduce either component of the
requested attorney’s fees and conclude that the requested fees are reasonable and appropriate. I
thus find no cause to reduce them in this instance. I deem the time devoted to the matter to be
reasonable, and I will therefore award all fees requested without adjustment.
III. Calculation of Litigation 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 (noting that
only costs incurred, rather than projected expenses, may be reasonable). 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 & Human Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).
Petitioner seeks $1,554.74 in outstanding costs, including the filing fee and medical record
retrieval costs. Interim Fees Mot. at 75-76. Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for
all claimed costs. See id. at 77-116. 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.
5

Case 1:23-vv-02161-UNJ Document 60 Filed 04/09/26 Page 6 of 6
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 Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
I award a total of $36,570.74 (reflecting $35,016.00 in fees, and $1,554.74 in costs) to be
paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s former counsel, Mr. Andrew D. 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