LANTZ v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-844V
CHRISTY LANTZ,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 15, 2025
Christopher 	J. Webb, 	Black McLaren 	Jones 	Ryland 	& 	Griffee, 	Memphis, 	TN, for
Petitioner.
Sara DeStefano, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On May 31, 2024, 	Christy Lantz 	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 related to vaccine
administration after receiving an influenza vaccination on October 12, 2023. Petition, ECF
No. 1. On May 22, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based
on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 28.
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-00844-UNJ Document 39 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $39,078.21 (representing $35,204.40 in fees plus $3,873.81 in costs). Application for
Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 2, 2025, ECF No. 33. Petitioner also filed a
signed 	statement 	representing 	that 	Petitioner 	incurred 	no 	personal 	out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 33-3.
Respondent 	reacted 	to 	the 	motion 	on 	September 	15, 	2024, 	reporting 	that
Petitioner’s request for fees and costs include luxury travel accommodations charges.
Respondent stated but that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of
attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case and defers resolution of the amount to be
awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Response at 1-5, ECF No. 34.
Petitioner filed a reply indicating that all fees and costs were incurred in good faith and
“with an eye towards cost efficiency.” Reply at 2, ECF No. 35.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a
reduction in the amount of 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 1:24-vv-00844-UNJ Document 39 Filed 01/27/26 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. And all time billed to the matter was
reasonably incurred.
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has requested a total of $3,833.05 in litigation costs. Such costs are
associated with obtaining medical records, the Court’s filing fee, postage costs and travel
expenses. ECF No. 33-2. I have reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of
them to be reasonable - with the exception of charges claimed for a luxury hotel.
Like attorney’s fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). The billing
records reveal that attorney Webb traveled from Memphis, Tennessee, 	to Baltimore,
Maryland, on July 14, 2024, for an in-person meeting with Petitioner. Mr. Webb stayed at
The Four Seasons Hotel during said trip, at a rate of $399.00 per night, excluding taxes.
ECF No. 33-2 at 38. This nightly rate exceeds the federal government’s daily lodging
budget for a hotel stay in Baltimore, Maryland, which was most recently $137.00 per night
in July 2024.3 Likewise, the federal government’s total Meals and Incidental Expenses
(M&IE) amount for one day in 2024 was $69.004 which includes breakfast, lunch, dinner,
and incidental 	expenses. 	The hotel 	invoice, however, reflects that Mr. Webb spent
$131.31 for lunch at the Four Seasons on July 15, 2024, which exceeds the daily M&IE
budget.
While 	travel costs related 	to the Vaccine Claim are generally 	compensable,
excessive costs claimed for upgraded methods of transportation, extravagant meals, and
3 See GSA FY 2024 Per Diem Rates f or Baltimore, Maryland at: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-
book/per-diem-rates.
4 See Meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) rates and breakdown at: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-
book/per-diem-rates.
Case 1:24-vv-00844-UNJ Document 39 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
luxury hotels are not. Accordingly, I find the total amount claimed for the luxury hotel stay
including meals, to be excessive and hereby apply a reduction of fifty percent as a fair
adjustment to account for this issue. Application of the foregoing reduces the total
amount of costs to be awarded by $569.92.5
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. 	I award 	a total 	of $38,508.29 	(representing
$35,204.40 in fees plus $3,303.89 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.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 This amount is calculated as f ollows: $1,139.84 x 0.50% = $569.92.
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-00844-UNJ Document 39 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 4