RANKS v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 2, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WILLIAM RANKS, *
*
*
Petitioner, * No. 20-1665V
*
v. * Special Master Young
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner
Dorian Hurley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On January 6, 2025, William Ranks (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees
and costs, requesting a total of $34,091.98 for the work of his former counsel, Andrew Downing.
Pet’r’s Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (“Pet’r’s Mot.”) at 17, ECF No. 70; Pet’r’s
Ex. A at 6, ECF No. 70-1. This amount consists of $34,036.50 in fees and $55.48 in costs. Id.
Petitioner has not incurred any personal costs related to the prosecution of his petition. Id. at 19.
On January 21, 2025, Respondent filed his response to Petitioner’s motion. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF
No. 71. 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 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5

2
I. Procedural History
On November 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program”).2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(2018); Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered from polymyalgia rheumatica as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 3, 2019. Pet. at 1.
On November 16, 2023, Petitioner filed a first motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
ECF No. 57. On November 30, 2023, Respondent filed his response. ECF No. 58. Petitioner did
not file a reply. On December 12, 2023, I issued a decision granting $60,495.20 in interim
attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at 6. On October 28, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on
the record. ECF No. 67. Respondent filed a response on December 26, 2024, and Petitioner filed
a reply on January 6, 2025. ECF Nos. 68, 69.
On January 6, 2025, Petitioner filed a second motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
Pet’r’s Mot. Respondent filed his response on January 21, 2025. Resp’t’s Resp. Petitioner did not
file a reply. This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. 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)
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).
Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5

3
(“The delay in adjudication, to date, is due to a steady increase in the number of petitions filed
each year.”).
Mr. Downing is no longer on the case. However, while he was on the case, Petitioner’s
fees and costs 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
$34,091.98 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.
III. 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.
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
Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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.3
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; for Ms. Ann Allison, $415.00 per hour for work performed in 2022 and 2023, and $435.00
per hour for work performed in 2024; and for Ms. Courtney Jorgenson, $345.00 per hour for work
performed in 2023, and $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2024. Petitioner also requests
rates between $155.00 and $175.00 per hour for work performed by her counsel’s paralegals
between 2023 and 2024.
I find that these are reasonable and in accordance with what counsel have previously been
awarded for their Vaccine Program work. I 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
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 reasonable. Counsel provided sufficiently
detailed descriptions for the tasks performed. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of
interim fees sought.
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). Regarding expert fees, “[t]he
question is not whether [the expert] expended the numbers of hours claimed, but whether it was
necessary or reasonable for him to do so.” Baker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-653V,
2005 WL 6122529, at *4 (Fed. Cl. June 21, 2005) (quoting Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 90-208V, 1991 WL 135015, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 5, 1991), remanded, 24.
Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (1991), aff’d, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). An expert retained by petitioners in
the Vaccine Program will only be compensated at a reasonable hourly rate, and petitioners have
the burden of demonstrating that the expert costs incurred were reasonable. Smith v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0043V, 2020 WL 1243238, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 20,
3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: https://www.cfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-rate-
fee-schedules
Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2020) (citing Ceballos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-97V, 2004 WL 784910, at *13
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 25, 2004)). 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 $55.48 in attorneys’ costs, consisting of shipping fees. These
costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Petitioner is
therefore awarded the full amount of interim costs sought.
IV. 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 $34,036.50
(Reduction) -$0.00
Interim Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $34,036.50
Interim Costs Requested $55.48
(Reduction) -$0.00
Interim Costs Awarded $55.48
Total Amount Awarded $34,091.98
Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $34,091.98, 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.
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.
Case 1:20-vv-01665-UNJ Document 76 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5