MARANTO v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0004V
LINDA MARANTO,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 16, 2025
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury following a tetanus
diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on May 29, 2024. Petition,
ECF No. 1. On October 28, 2025, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding the Petitioner
entitled to compensation. ECF No. 25. On October 31, 2025, I issued a decision awarding
compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 29.
1Because 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.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $32,173.01 (representing $30,167.50 in fees plus $2,005.51 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed November 6, 2025. ECF No. 33. Furthermore,
Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses
were incurred. ECF No. 33-3 at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on November 12, 2025, indicating that he is
satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in
this case. Respondent notes that certain tasks that would typically be billed at a paralegal
rate, were billed at an attorney rate. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 34. Petitioner filed no reply
thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a
reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons
listed below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). 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 & Human 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 & 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 [her] experience
and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. 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 & 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).
The petitioner “bears 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). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1.
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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.
ATTORNEY FEES
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates
requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior
determinations and are hereby awarded herein.
However, a few of the tasks performed by attorney Jimmy Zgheib in this matter are
more properly billed using a paralegal rate. 3 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal
or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15,
2009). 	“[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately
performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” 	Doe/11 v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries reflect reasonably performed tasks,
they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Application
of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $183.40.4
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner requests $2,005.51 in overall costs. ECF No. 33-2 at 2-35. Such costs
reflect the expenses of obtaining medical records, mailing, and the Court’s filing fee. I
have reviewed the requested costs but find that Petitioner’s counsel has not substantiated
a few of the requested costs with the required documentation, such as an invoice or proof
of 	payment. 	Before 	reimbursement 	of 	costs 	will 	be 	made, 	sufficient 	supporting
documentation, such as invoices, receipts, and billing statements, must be provided. See
3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on
medical records requests and drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR questionnaire, notice
of filing, notice of intent, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. See billing
entries dated: 12/17/2024, 1/3/2025, (3 entries), 3/7/2025, 11/3/2025. ECF No. 33-1 at 2-22.
4 This amount is calculated as follows: ($400.00 - $197.00 = $203.00 x 0.20 hrs.) + ($450.00 - $212.00 =
$238.00 x .60 hrs.) = $183.40.
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at 72-
74 (emphasis added). 5
When Petitioners fail to provide appropriate documentation to substantiate a
requested cost, special masters have refrained from awarding the relevant sum. 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). Accordingly, I will disallow reimbursement for
all unsubstantiated costs herein. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of
fees to be awarded by $273.46. 6
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s
Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs
in the total amount of $31,716.15 (representing $29,984.10 in fees plus $1,732.05 in
costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account
for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see
Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in
accordance with this decision. 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 The guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program can be found at:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program
6 This amount is calculated as follows: $100.15 (missing receipt from 3/20/2025) + $123.12 (missing
receipt from 3/23/2025) + $50.19 (missing receipt from 10/28/2025) = $273.46.
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 4