FLYNN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-658V
SHEILA FLYNN,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 17, 2025
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On April 25, 2024, Sheila Flynn 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 from a shoulder 	injury related 	to vaccine
administration as a result of an influenza vaccination administered to her on September
28, 	2022. 	Petition, 	ECF No. 1. 	On April 	17, 	2024, 	I issued 	a decision 	awarding
compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 31.
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
inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).
Case 1:24-vv-00658-UNJ Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner has now filed a final motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an
award of $32,722.84 (representing $8,164.60 in fees and costs incurred by Petitioner’s
counsel 	of record: 	Alison 	Haskins, 	plus $24,558.24 	in fees and 	costs incurred 	by
Petitioner’s former counsel, Andrew Downing). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
(“Motion”) filed April 18, 	2025, ECF No. 35. 	Furthermore, 	Petitioner 	filed a signed
statement representing that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF
No. 35-4.
Respondent reacted to the motion on April 24, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied
the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case
but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response at 2-4,
ECF No. 36. Petitioner filed a reply requesting an award of fees and costs as indicated in
the Motion. ECF No. 37.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a
reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons set forth 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
Case 1:24-vv-00658-UNJ Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
and costs sought] 	at the time of the submission.” 	Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. 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.
ATTORNEY FEES
a. 	Hourly Rates
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The hourly
rates requested 	by former and current counsel and their supporting 	paralegals 	are
reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and shall be awarded herein.
b. 	Non-Compensable Tasks
Attorneys' fees are awarded for the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation. See Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2008). A review of the invoices shows that Petitioner’s former counsel billed for non-
compensable work and/or tasks considered administrative in nature, 3 such as reducing
the filing size 	of medical records in preparation 	for filing and processing 	or paying
invoices. It is well established 	that billing for clerical and other secretarial work is not
permitted in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g., Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989)
(noting that tasks “primarily of a secretarial and clerical nature ... should be considered
as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.”). See Mostovoy
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 	4, 2016). 	Secretarial 	or administrative 	tasks should 	not be billed 	at all,
regardless of who performs such task. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
Accordingly, I hereby apply a fees reduction of $1,102.50 4 to account for these non-
compensable tasks. All other time billed to the matter shall be awarded.
3 The f ollowing billing entries are considered administrative and non-compensable: 3/18/24: “Processing,
ocr’d, reduce f iling size f or proper court f iling and proper intake of medical records (0.40 hrs.).” 3/18/24:
“Receipt and review invoice for medical records…Issuance of payment and proper documentation of invoice
payment…(0.50 hrs.).” Other entries ref lecting similar descriptions of administrative work are dated as
f ollows: 3/21/24 (two entries); 3/22/24; 4/3/24; 4/10/24 (two entries); 7/1/24; 7/3/24; 7/8/24 (two entries);
11/19/24; 12/2/24. See ECF No. 17 at 23-29.
4 This amount consists of the combined total that was charged by Petitioner’s f ormer counsel f or the
billing entries cited in Footnote 3.
Case 1:24-vv-00658-UNJ Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
LITIGATION COSTS
Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting 	documentation for all claimed
costs. ECF No. 35-3 and ECF No. 17 at 30-59. Respondent offered no specific objection
to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award
them in full.
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 attorney’s fees and costs
in the total amount of $31,620.34 5 as follows:
x 	A lump sum of $8,164.60, representing reimbursement for attorney’s
fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s
counsel 	of 	record: 	Alison 	Haskins’ 	IOLTA 	account 	for 	prompt
disbursement; and
x 	A lump sum of $23,455.74, representing reimbursement for attorney’s
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 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. 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as f ees f or legal services rendered.
Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would
be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
Case 1:24-vv-00658-UNJ Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 4