WEAVER et al v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1494V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
EBONIE WEAVER, 	*
parent of T.M., a minor, 	* 	Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, 	* 	Filed: 	November 24, 2025
*
v. 	*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH 	*
AND HUMAN SERVICES, 	*
*
Respondent. 	*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Edward Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On November 14, 2016, Ebonie Weaver, on behalf of her minor daughter, T.M., filed a
petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2
Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1. Petitioner alleged that T.M. suffered a “seizure disorder and its sequelae
that were more likely than not caused by an adverse reaction to DTaP, Hib, IPV, Rotateq, and
hepatitis B vaccines administered to her on December 10, 2013.” Id. Petitioner succeeded in
establishing entitlement, and damages were issued in this case this past spring.
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).
Case 1:16-vv-01494-AOB Document 120 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Petitioner has now filed a motion for a final award of attorney’s fees and costs. Motion for
Final Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, dated Oct. 31, 2025 (ECF No. 117) (“Mot.”). This is
Petitioner’s second, final fees and costs request (Petitioner originally filed for, and was granted,
Interim Fees in 2022 (Decision, dated Aug. 25, 2022 (ECF No. 77) (“Interim Fee Dec.”)). The
expenses requested in Petitioner’s Final Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs were incurred after
filing their Motion for Interim Fees. Mot. at 1. Petitioner requests $121,257.38 in fees and costs
(reflecting $75,555.20 in attorney’s fees and $15,639.95 in costs for the work performed by
attorneys at Kraus Law Group, plus $45,702.18 in Petitioner’s outstanding costs to establish and
maintain a guardianship over T.M.’s estate). Mot. at 1. Respondent reacted to the present fees
request on November 3, 2025. See Response, dated Nov. 3, 2025 (ECF No. 118) (“Resp.”).
Respondent agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the statutory requirement for a fees award, and
otherwise defers the calculation of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Resp. at 2–3.
Petitioner did not file a Reply.
For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT IN PART Petitioner’s motion, awarding
fees and costs in the total amount of $121,041.38.
ANALYSIS
I. 	Calculation of Attorney’s Fees
Because Petitioner’s claim was successful, she is entitled to a fees and costs award—
although 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 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 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 a fee award is considered applicable in most cases where a fee
award is authorized by federal statute. Hensely v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429–37 (1983).
An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bass the
proper hourly rate to be awarded on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C.,
for Vaccine Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there
is a substantial difference in rates (the so-called “Davis” exception”). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348
(citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges
for attorneys with different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine
Case 1:16-vv-01494-AOB Document 120 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at
*19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
Petitioner requests the following rates for her attorney and support staff, based on the years
work was performed:
2022 	2023 	2024 	2025
Amy Kraus
(Attorney)
$494.00 	$436.00 	N/A 	$494.00
Edward Kraus
(Attorney)
$472.00 	$497.00 	$525.00 	$564.00
Brynna Gang
(Attorney)
$350.00 	N/A 	$412.00 	$443.00
Amanda Ramos
(Paralegal)
$170.00 	$177.00 	$186.00 	N/A
Megan
Vignocchi
(Paralegal)
N/A 	N/A 	N/A 	$180.00
Mr. Kraus, Mrs. Kraus, and Ms. Gang practice in Chicago, IL—a jurisdiction that has been
deemed “in forum.” Accordingly, counsel should be paid forum rates as established in McCulloch.
See Piatek v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-524V, 2021 WL 5755318 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 20, 2021). Upon review, most of the requested hourly rates are consistent with the
OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules and what has been awarded to these
practitioners in the past. I will, however, adjust Ms. Kraus’s 2022 rate to $414.00, consistent with
the rate I awarded her in my Decision granting Petitioner’s Interim Fee request. Interim Fee Dec.
at 3. This reduces the amount of fees to be awarded by $216.00.3 Otherwise, I find the time devoted
to the matter since the first interim award to have been reasonable, and will make no adjustments
to the award in that respect.
II. 	Calculation of Attorney’s Costs
Petitioners seeks $45,702.18 in outstanding costs, comprised of $15,639.95 in outstanding
litigation costs, $10,193.77 in costs to establish a minor guardianship of T.M.’s estate, and
$19,868.46 in costs to maintain guardianship of T.M.’s estate for six years. Mot. at 1.
3 Calculated by: $494.00 – $414.00 = $80 x (0.4 hours + 2.30 hours) = $216.00. See Mot. at 5 (fee entries dated Aug.
11, 2022).
Case 1:16-vv-01494-AOB Document 120 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 6

4
a. 	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 v. United States, 52 Fed.
Cl. 667, 670 (2002): Perreira v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992).
Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while
working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at
*16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). 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 seeks $15,639.95 in outstanding costs, including the filing fee, medical record
retrieval costs, mailing costs, and costs associated with the work of Medical Legal Services for the
coordination of future care, report, and plan for the Petitioner. Mot. at 31–93. I find those costs
requested to be reasonable overall, they shall be reimbursed in full. All other requested costs in
this matter are commonly incurred in the Vaccine Program and are reasonable herein.
b. 	Costs to Establish a Minor Guardianship over T.M.’s Estate
Petitioner also seeks reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs related to the guardianship
proceedings undertaken by Anthony M. Abou Ezzi of Ezzi Law and for the projected maintenance
of the guardianship for T.M., until T.M. reaches the age of majority. See Mot. at 1, 95–105.
Special Masters have awarded fees-related costs incurred in the establishment of a
guardianship estate, and also where guardianship is incorporated into the terms of stipulation or
proffer. See e.g., Strickland v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-269V, 2023 WL 2364907,
at *8 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 6, 2023); Martin v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-318V, 2019 WL
625442 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan 22, 2019); Derenzo v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-
35V, 2018, WL 1125231 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan 9, 2018); Cansler v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 09-596V, 2011 WL 597791, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 2, 2011).
Here, Petitioner’s guardianship attorney, Mr. Ezzi, incurred fees and costs relative to the
establishment of a guardianship of the estate of T.M. in the amount of $13,193.77 - $12,802.50 in
fees for the establishment of the guardianship, and $391.27 for costs associated with establishing
the guardianship. Mot. at 101–102. Mr. Ezzi charged at an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour for
work performed in 2023, and $325 for work performed in 2024 and 2025. Id. at 95–102. Mr. Kraus
issued a $3,000.00 retainer to Mr. Ezzi, and I have already reimbursed that expense in the section
above. So I need to weigh and decide the reasonableness of the remaining $10,193.77. As the
Case 1:16-vv-01494-AOB Document 120 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 6

5
establishment of the guardianship was necessary for compensation to be awarded, these fees and
costs shall be awarded in full.
c. 	Petitioner’s Costs to Maintain a Minor Guardianship over T.M.’s Estate
Petitioner additionally requests that the fees and costs associated with the maintenance of
the guardianship of T.M.’s estate be reimbursed - in the amount of $19,868.46. Mot. at 1–2. This
amount consists of an expected $3,954.00 per year for six years (when T.M. reaches the age of
majority), reduced to present day value using a 3% return rate. Id. at 1–2, 103–105 In support of
this request, petitioner submitted an invoice from Mr. Ezzi which outlined the number of hours per
year and costs associated with maintaining and discharging T.M.s’ estate for one year. Mot. at
103–05.
Expenses used to maintain a minor guardianship were only considered an allowable
expense recently, when the Federal Circuit ruled that the expenses of the creation and maintenance
of a guardianship come within Section 15(e)(1) of the Vaccine Act, and are therefore an allowable
expense. McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 923 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, this
class of expense is compensable. And I have reviewed the projected expenses to comply with the
requirements of the state court, and deem them reasonable. Petitioner will be awarded a total of
$19,868.46 for the maintenance of the guardianship of T.M.’s estate.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining
the propriety of a final fees award, I GRANT IN PART Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
and Costs awarding total amount of $121,041.38, reflecting (a) $75,339.20 in attorney’s fees and
$15,639.95 in costs; and (b) $45,702.18 in Petitioner’s unreimbursed costs and future costs to
establish and maintain a guardianship over T.M.’s estate, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’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
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.
Case 1:16-vv-01494-AOB Document 120 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
Case 1:16-vv-01494-AOB Document 120 Filed 12/19/25 Page 6 of 6