JONES v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-788V
Filed: December 11, 2025
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
TAMI JONES, Trustee for the heirs of 	*
Charley Boon, Deceased, 	*
*
Petitioner, 	*
*
v. 	*
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH 	*
AND HUMAN SERVICES, 	*
*
Respondent. 	*
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
Randall Knutson, Esq., Knutson & Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for petitioner.
Tyler King, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On May 29, 2019, Charley Boon (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. (“Vaccine Act” or
“Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as the
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 27, 2016. Petition, ECF No. 1.
Petitioner passed away on November 23, 2019. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 49. On October
31, 2024, Tami Jones was substituted as the petitioner, serving as trustee for the heirs of Charley
Boon. ECF No. 68.
Petitioner now seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting a total of $4,396.50,
representing $4,316.50 in fees and $80.00 in costs. Motion for Fees, ECF No. 73. After careful
consideration, petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED for the reasons
set forth below.
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, the undersigned finds that the identified material fits
within this definition, such material will be redacted 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 13

2
I. 	Procedural History
The petition was filed on May 29, 2019, and the matter was assigned to the undersigned
the following day. ECF Nos. 1, 4. Between June 14, 2019, and October 1, 2020, petitioner filed
medical records, an expert report from Dr. James Dahlgren, accompanying medical literature, and
a statement of completion. Pet. Exs. 1-27, ECF Nos. 7-10.
On December 26, 2019, petitioner’s counsel filed Mr. Boon’s death certificate. ECF No.
18. The following day, petitioner’s counsel filed a status report acknowledging Mr. Boon’s passing
and requesting that his wife be appointed as trustee in furtherance of the claim. ECF No. 19.
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, recommending against compensation, asserting that
while petitioner alleged a GBS injury, the medical records reflected a diagnosis of CIDP, which
respondent argued was inconsistent with the claimed vaccine injury. ECF No. 32 at 19-20.
Petitioner filed a supplemental report from Dr. Dahlgren on April 26, 2021. ECF No. 34.
Respondent filed an expert report and supporting medical literature from Dr. Jamieson on June 28,
2021. Respondent’s Exhibits (“Resp. Ex.”) A-B, ECF Nos. 36-39.
On August 2, 2021, petitioner filed a third report from Dr. Dahlgren. Pet. Ex. 64, ECF No.
40. Four months later, respondent filed responsive reports from Dr. Jamieson and Dr. He. Resp.
Exs. C-E, ECF Nos. 46-47. Petitioner filed a fourth report from Dr. Dahlgren with medical
literature on March 4, 2022. Pet. Exs. 65-72, ECF No. 49.
A status conference was held on April 27, 2022, to discuss the issues in the case. In
particular, the shortcomings of Dr. Dahlgren’s reports, including but not limited to his failure to
address a severe upper respiratory illness suffered by petitioner one month after his flu vaccination,
his failure to address Althen, and his failure to address petitioner’s onset of symptoms being 12-13
weeks after vaccination. Petitioner was then ordered to file a status report advising on next steps.
ECF No. 50.
In lieu of a status report, petitioner filed a perfunctory Motion for Ruling on the Record.
ECF No. 52. Following an Order for petitioner to file either a detailed submission or status report
by August 22, 2022, petitioner filed a more detailed memorandum in support of the Motion for
Ruling on the Record on August 11, 2022. ECF. Nos. 53-54.
Respondent responded to the Motion on October 26, 2022, arguing that the petitioner had
failed to provide preponderant evidence that petitioner’s flu vaccine caused his alleged injuries.
ECF No. 57. Petitioner filed a status report on November 2, 2022, advising that no Reply would
be filed. ECF Nos. 57-58.
Petitioner received an interim fee award of $81,747.14 representing $58,099.25 in
attorneys’ fees and $23,647.89 in costs on August 1, 2024. ECF No. 61.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 13

3
On October 31, 2024, petitioner filed Patty Boon’s death certificate and an order requesting
Tami Jones be substituted as trustee for petitioner. Pet. Exs. 73-74, ECF No. 66. Petitioner’s
motion was granted the same day. ECF No. 68.
A detailed decision denying entitlement issued on June 24, 2025.
Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on August 14, 2025.
Motion for Fees, ECF No. 73. Petitioner requests a total of $4,396.50, representing $4,316.50 in
attorneys’ fees and $80.00 in costs. ECF No. 73 at 1. Respondent filed a response on August 20,
2025, raising concerns regarding reasonable basis and deferring to the undersigned as to whether
the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs were met. ECF No. 74.
Petitioner did not file a reply.
The matter is now ripe for a decision.
II. 	Factual Background
A. Summary of Relevant Medical Records
Petitioner had an extensive prior medical history: prostate cancer with prostatectomy, skin
cancer, appendectomy, lumbar spine fracture at L5, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, seizure disorder
with epilepsy, and arteriosclerotic heart disease with angioplasty. Pet. at 1; Pet. Ex. 2; Pet. Ex. 5
at 96. In December of 2014, petitioner fell at work and fractured his hip, requiring surgery. See
Pet. Ex. 5 at 97-107. Due to growing concerns over his abnormal gait, petitioner visited his primary
care physician (“PCP”) in June of 2015. He was noted to be “off balance.” Pet. Ex. 5 at 94. The
PCP also noted that petitioner waddled and shuffled consistent with osteoarthritis from his hip
fracture. Id. Petitioner’s examination was otherwise normal, and the PCP ultimately noted the
petitioner was doing well. Petitioner continued to work in the hardware department of Home Depot
and walked five to six miles a day. Id.
On November 10, 2015, petitioner visited his PCP for a flu vaccine. His wife reported
concerns for Parkinson’s disease and dementia. Pet. Ex. 5 at 92. The PCP recorded that petitioner
did not “shuffle his feet.” Id. at 91. His wife was told that petitioner did not have dementia, but she
was “not convinced.” Id. Petitioner received the flu vaccine.
Three months later, petitioner’s wife called his PCP with concerns that petitioner had
worsening dementia and requested a referral. Pet. Ex. 5 at 92.
On September 27, 2016, petitioner received a high dose flu vaccine at a CVS Pharmacy.
Pet. Ex. 3. He was 69 years old.
Petitioner began suffering from “severe flu symptoms” on October 24, 2016, and took over
the counter medications for three days. Pet. Ex. 2 at 1. Two months later, petitioner experienced
numbness in his “hands and feet on both sides.” Id. at 2.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 13

4
Petitioner presented to the emergency room on December 31, 2016, reporting bilateral
numbness in his hands and fingertips for several days that traveled from his knees to his ankles.
Pet. Ex. 5. at 41, 142. Petitioner reported shuffling his feet for two to three years and a fall at work
a week prior. Along with reports of extreme anxiety from his wife, he also described an episode
of double vision a few days prior, chills, and sweats, but no other flu-like symptoms. Id. at 41. Test
results were negative, and he was discharged in stable condition and instructed to follow up with
his PCP. Id. at 44.
On January 4, 2017, petitioner presented to his PCP. Petitioner had fallen that morning and
was using a front-wheeled walker for assistance. Pet. Ex. 5 at 86. The PCP noted that petitioner
underwent “extensive work-up in the hospital including MRI of the brain.” Id. He had ataxia.3 His
underlying diseases were noted as epilepsy with seizure disorder, prostate cancer, hip fracture two
years ago, arteriosclerotic heart disease with old MI status post angioplasty in 1997, and peripheral
neuropathy.4
Petitioner was admitted to the hospital on January 10, 2017, with a sudden onset of severe
numbness and increasing fatigue in both arms and legs. Pet. Ex. 5 at 87; Pet. Ex. 6 at 2. The
differential diagnoses included polyneuropathy and GBS. Pet. Ex. 5 at 91. It was concluded that
petitioner had C5 level quadriplegia. Petitioner underwent, “anterior diskectomy and fusion at
levels C3-C4 and C4-C5 with anterior plate placed and screws.” Id. at 87. Following the surgery,
petitioner’s symptoms noticeably improved. Pet. Ex. 6 at 2, 17-19. His condition worsened the
following day, but his numbness was slightly improved. Id. at 2. On January 22, 2017, petitioner
was discharged to a nursing home. He was diagnosed with memory impairment, anxiety, and C5
level quadriplegia with cervical myelomalacia. Id.
Petitioner was examined by a neurologist on February 7, 2017. See Pet. Ex. 5 at 64-65. The
doctor noted his previous history from January 11, 2017, was consistent with cervical myelopathy
at C4-C5 with no findings of transverse myelitis (“TM”), neuromyelitis optica (“NMO”), West
Nile virus poliomyelitis, or atypical extremely rapid motor neuron disease. Id. His wife reported
that his abnormal gait had lasted for “over a year or two, scuffing the toes of his feet.” Id. at 64.
Petitioner was last able to walk and stand in December of 2016. By February 2017, he laid in bed
for most of the day and received occasional physical therapy. Id. He also suffered from confusion
at times. The doctor’s impression post-examination was quadriparesis in the setting of cervical
myelopathy, present for an estimated two weeks prior to diagnosis, with marked upper motor
neuron pattern quadriparesis C4/C5 level, and lower limb sensory disturbance. Id. at 65. Although
the time course, clinical exam, and diagnostics were consistent with cervical spine dysfunction,
the minor improvement following surgery raised concern for a permanent spinal injury related to
cord infarction. The doctor also considered if petitioner was experiencing autonomic dysreflexia
due to varying blood pressure and bladder dysfunction. Petitioner was ultimately instructed to
continue physical therapy. Id.
3 Ataxia refers to the “failure of muscular coordination; irregularity of muscular action.” Ataxia, Dorland’s
Illustrated Medical Dictionary 168 (33rd ed. 2019) [hereinafter Dorland’s].
4 Peripheral neuropathy, also called polyneuropathy, is “neuropathy of several peripheral nerves simultaneously.”
Polyneuropathy, Dorland’s 1468.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 13

5
Between January 22, 2017, and February 21, 2017, petitioner’s weakness in his upper and
lower extremities increased. See Pet. Ex. 5 at 26, 30. He was readmitted to the hospital on February
21, 2017, for additional testing following his discharge against medical advice on February 14. Id.
at 26, 30, 140; Pet. Ex. 6 at 294. It was noted that petitioner’s strength remarkably improved after
surgery, but he had not maintained that improvement and had regressed some. His chief complaints
prior to surgery were numbness in his arms and legs which improved after surgery. His weakness
in his upper and lower extremities, however, had increased. Pet. Ex. 6 at 294. Petitioner developed
neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Pet. Ex. 5 at 26.
At this point, extensive testing had only captured petitioner’s cervical spine stenosis
causing quadriplegia. Pet. Ex. 6 at 296. After a follow-up with neurology, petitioner’s imaging was
without fasciculations, respiratory, or bulbar symptoms. Id. at 300. Given his time course, prior
diagnostics, and trajectory of his neurologic symptoms, no other neurologic conditions were
plausible. Id. The neurologist was concerned for possible permanent spinal cord injury from
prolonged compression or spinal cord infarct but wanted to rule out postoperative seroma or other
phlegmon5. Id. at 300-01. Petitioner’s quadriparesis had slightly worsened since his February 7,
2017, examination. However, there was no prior history or diagnostics consistent with NMO,
transverse myelitis, or other neurological conditions. As a result, the neurologist felt that empirical
IVIG 	would 	be 	worthwhile 	for 	a 	“very 	atypical 	multifocal 	motor 	neuropathy,” 	despite
inconsistency with the history and exam. Id. at 301-02. He received three days of IVIG without
any change. Petitioner developed a pressure ulcer and was discharged to San Diego Rehabilitation
on February 24, 2017. See id. at 302, 313.
Petitioner remained at the rehabilitation facility until March 1, 2017. Pet. Ex. 6 at 426; see
also Pet. Ex. 10 at 2. After neurological re-evaluation, repeat IVIG was planned for two weeks
later. Petitioner started prednisone along with Bactrim for a UTI. Due to an insurance change, his
stay at the rehabilitation facility was shortened and his PCP and neurologist were changed.
Petitioner was discharged home, but it was strongly recommended that he be admitted to another
facility for further rehabilitation. Id. at 428, 434.
On March 1, 2017, the day of his discharge, petitioner was evaluated by a new PCP. Pet.
Ex. 10 at 2. His prior history included partial quadriplegia, abnormal movements of his upper
limbs, and shuffling gait for the past two years. Id. His wife reported some mild memory issues.
His recent history over the past two months noted that he was working 40 hours a week at Home
Depot three months ago but was now using a wheelchair. Id. On physical examination, he had
weakness in all four extremities that was more pronounced in the proximal muscles and on the
right side of his body. The PCP was unable to elicit his reflexes, and petitioner had muscle wasting.
Id. at 3.
Petitioner presented to a new neurologist on March 16, 2017. Pet. Ex. 11 at 2. He was
unable to walk, had numbness and tingling in his hands and fingers, and had memory problems.
Id. The onset of symptoms was reported as around December 28, 2016, when he developed tingling
in all limbs over two days while off work. Id. He went to the ER on New Year’s Day, was admitted
for testing, and sent home two days later. Id. On January 6, 2017, he presented to his doctor and
was unable to stand. During that weekend, he became immobile and was admitted to the hospital.
5 Phlegmon is “acute subcutaneous inflammation, sometimes with abscess.” Phlegmon, Dorland’s 1413.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 13

6
Id. He underwent spinal surgery on January 16 and extensive testing, but it was unclear if the
surgery helped. He spent several weeks in rehabilitation. After additional testing was done, he was
admitted to the hospital again. Id. He had been shuffling his feet for two years before, and his wife
showed a video taken in April of 2016 of him sitting, moving the fingers on both hands and
questioned if it was a symptom of a neurological condition. He received three days of IVIG in
February and regained some physical strength and mental clarity. Id. The assessment at this visit
was idiopathic peripheral neuropathy. Id. at 6. The neurologist wrote that petitioner may have had
an episode of GBS, but GBS patients do not need to be retreated unless they show worsening,
which typically happens before nadir and petitioner was “well beyond that.” Id. It was unclear if
he 	could 	participate 	in 	extensive 	physical 	rehabilitation. 	However, 	he 	was 	admitted 	to
rehabilitation from March 21, 2017, through April 15, 2017. He was discharged home in stable
condition with a diagnosis of GBS. Pet. Ex. 13 at 1-3.
Petitioner returned to his PCP on April 17, 2017, who noted that he was discharged from
acute in-patient rehabilitation due to lack of progression. He reported regaining some strength with
improvement to fine motor movement. His goal was to go back to work, but he was tired all the
time and did not want to participate in rehabilitation. Pet. Ex. 10 at 6.
In May of 2017, Mrs. Boon informed the neurologist that petitioner was declining and
requested additional IVIG treatment. Pet. Ex. 11 at 7. The neurologist asked if petitioner had
undergone a spinal tap, which would have shown elevated protein on CSF consistent with
GBS/CIDP. Mrs. Boon confirmed that petitioner had not. Petitioner was then admitted to the
hospital for five days of IVIG. Id.; Pet. Ex. 14 at 1. Upon admission, he exhibited increasing
weakness and difficulty swallowing. He slightly improved after five days of IVIG but remained
too weak to return home and was transferred to acute rehabilitation. Pet. Ex. 14 at 1-2. The
discharge diagnoses included acute exacerbation of underlying GBS, neurogenic bladder, urinary
tract infection, and recent left calf deep vein thrombosis. Id. at 1.
Petitioner presented to his PCP on June 5, 2017, reporting signs of improvement. He was
able to stand from a seated position with assistance, take a few steps with a walker, shower with a
chair, and feed himself independently. He received PT at home. Pet. Ex. 10 at 14.
On June 9, 2017, at his follow-up neurology appointment, petitioner reported that it was
easier to get in and out of his car since receiving IVIG. Pet. Ex. 11 at 9. His wife reported he only
completed tasks if instructed and lacked motivation to improve. Petitioner fell the day before his
appointment. He was receiving PT at home three times a week and was supposed to undergo
EMG/NCS testing while in rehabilitation, but it was never performed. Id. On examination, the
neurologist noted slow mentation, but “fairly good power” in his upper and lower extremities.
Reflexes were difficult to elicit. Petitioner could stand with assistance and take a few steps with
help. Id. at 10. He was monitored for recurrent or worsening weakness, which could require an
additional five-day course of IVIG. The neurologist stated, “[i]f this happens then I would diagnose
him with CIDP.” Because petitioner was taking blood thinners, a lumbar puncture was never
performed. Id. at 11.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 13

7
Petitioner relapsed and was diagnosed with CIDP on July 28, 2017. His neurologist ordered
IVIG every three weeks for six months. Pet. Ex. 15 at 73. In the following months, petitioner’s
condition declined, and PT was recommended. Pet. Ex. 11 at 15.
Petitioner returned to his neurologist on October 9, 2017, reporting a recent fall that led to
an ER visit. He continued to receive IVIG, experienced poor sleep, and lacked motivation to
exercise independently. His memory had improved, but the neurologist noted he would likely
require life-long assistance. Pet. Ex. 11 at 17. Petitioner was again diagnosed with CIDP with
ongoing IVIG as needed. Id. at 21.
A ten-month gap followed in the medical records. Petitioner was admitted to the hospital
from August 4 to August 20, 2018, for congestive heart failure. He underwent mitral valve
replacement, left atrial appendage clipping, and received a coronary artery bypass graft. He was
discharged without complication. Pet. Ex. 22 at 1-2, 24-25. He was later hospitalized from
September 12 to September 16, 2018, for tachycardia and hypotension. Pet. Ex. 52 at 2159.
On November 14, 2018, Petitioner resumed IVIG treatment, receiving two days of therapy
every three weeks for six months. Pet. Ex. 53 at 227.
On April 2, 2019, petitioner was admitted to the hospital for a hip fracture following a fall.
Pet. Ex. 53 at 257. He underwent surgical pinning of his right hip and was discharged home on
April 5, 2019. Id.
Petitioner suffered a CIDP flare on August 22, 2019, and was admitted to the hospital for
a five-day course of IVIG. He was discharged to acute rehabilitation on August 27, 2019. Pet. Ex.
53 at 747-48.
On November 15, 2019, petitioner’s condition worsened. He was admitted to the hospital
unable to stand or lift his arms. He received five days of IVIG treatment without improvement,
and a feeding tube was placed. Pet. Ex. 54 at 216-17. His respiratory status deteriorated, and he
passed away on November 23, 2019. The causes of death were listed as acute respiratory failure,
CIDP, severe malnutrition, severe deconditioning, atrial fibrillation, neurogenic bladder, and
anemia. Pet. Ex. 49.
B. Affidavit of Petitioner, Charley Boon
Petitioner filed an affidavit with his petition, confirming his extensive medical history prior
to the flu vaccine on September 27, 2016. Pet. Ex. 1 at 1. He suffered from skin cancer, hip fracture,
appendectomy, L5 fracture, hypertension, prostate cancer, prostatectomy, seizure disorder with
epilepsy, and arteriosclerotic heart disease status post angioplasty. Id.
Petitioner was in his “usual state of health” when he received the flu vaccine. Id. 	On
October 24, 2016, twenty-seven days after the vaccine, he began experiencing severe flu
symptoms. He took over-the-counter Dayquil Severe and Nyquil for three days. Id. By late
December 2016, he developed numbness in his hands and feet on both sides and started medical
treatment. Petitioner was hospitalized on multiple occasions and was later diagnosed with GBS.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 13

8
Id. at 2. He continued to suffer from symptoms and physical issues due to his GBS diagnosis. Pet.
Ex. 1 at 2. Petitioner alleged that the flu vaccine resulted in his GBS diagnosis. Id.
III. 	Legal Standard
A. Good Faith
Good faith is a subjective inquiry. Hamrick v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-
683V, 2007 WL 4793152, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 19, 2007). A petitioner acts in “good
faith” if he or she holds an honest belief that a vaccine injury occurred. Turner v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 99-544V, 2007 WL 4410030, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007).
Absent a showing of bad faith, “petitioners are entitled to a presumption of good faith.” Grice v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 36 Fed. Cl. 114, 121 (1996). Where respondent does not contest
good faith, special masters and typically do not address the issue further, and the presumption
applies. See Riley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-276V, 2011 WL 2036976, at *2 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011) (citing Di Roma, 1993 WL 496981, at *1); Turner, 2007 WL
4410030, at *5.
Here, respondent did not challenge good faith. Petitioner is afforded the presumption of
good faith in filing.
B. Reasonable Basis
To establish a reasonable basis, a petitioner must meet the prima facie requirements of §
11(c)(1) of the Vaccine Act with supporting documentation showing that the vaccinee:
(1) received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table;
(2) received the vaccination in the United States, or under certain stated circumstances
outside of the United States;
(3) sustained (or had significantly aggravated) an injury set forth in the Vaccine Injury
Table (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(e)) or that was caused by the vaccine;
(4) experienced the residual effects of the injury for more than six months, died, or required
an in-patient hospitalization with surgical intervention; and
(5) has not previously collected an award or settlement of a civil action for damages for
the same injury.
Cottingham, 971 F.3d at 1345-46.
A petitioner need not demonstrate these elements by a preponderance of the evidence. The
standard is somewhere between “a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of proof.” Id. A
special master’s evaluation of reasonable basis focuses on whether the evidence could make a
feasible claim for recovery under the Act. Santacroce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-
555V, 2018 WL 405121 at *7 (Fed. Cl. 2018). The Federal Circuit has characterized “more than
a mere scintilla” as evidence providing a sufficient basis for a reasonable inference of causation.
Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 154 Fed. Cl. 790, 795 (2021). Absence of an explicit
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 8 of 13

9
medical opinion of causation is not dispositive where the medical records themselves support
causation. James-Cornelius on Behalf of E.J. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 984 F.3d 1374,
1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
While incomplete records do not automatically preclude a finding of reasonable basis, an
overwhelming lack of objective evidence will not support one. Chuisano v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 288 (2014); see Simmons, 875 F.3d at 634-36 (finding no reasonable
basis where records lacked proof of vaccination and diagnosis, and petitioner disappeared for two
years before filing). The objective evidence must not be so inconsistent that a feasible claim
becomes impossible. Cottingham, 154 Fed. Cl. at 795 (citing Randall v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 18-448V, 2020 WL 7491210, at *12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 24, 2020)) (finding no
reasonable basis where petitioner alleged a left-arm SIRVA, but medical records showed
vaccination in the right arm). A claim may also lose reasonable basis if late evidence undermines
support for the claim. See R.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 760 F. App’x 1010, 1012 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (citing Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 F.3d 1375, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir.
1994)). Thus, an earlier finding that a claim has reasonable basis does not preclude a special master
from later finding otherwise.
In determining whether a claim has reasonable basis to support it, a special master may
consider the totality of the circumstances, including, “the factual basis of the claim, the medical
and scientific support for the claim, the novelty of the vaccine, and the novelty of the theory of
causation.” Amankwaa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 138 Fed. Cl. 282, 289 (2018); see
Cottingham, 971 F.3d at 1344. Counsel’s subjective intent or efforts to gather records cannot
substitute for objective evidence. Cottingham, 971 F.3d at 135 (noting that attorney conduct does
not bear on the reasonable basis analysis). Nor may a petitioner’s uncorroborated statements alone
constitute objective evidence of reasonable basis, though they may contribute when consistent with
contemporaneous medical records. James-Cornelius, 984 F.3d at 1380; see, e.g., Chuisano, 116
Fed. Cl. at 291; Foster v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1714V, 2018 WL 774090, at *3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 2, 2018).
Finally, although the special master possesses broad discretion, that discretion must align
with the Vaccine Act’s remedial purpose of ensuring petitioners have access to competent legal
representation. A special master may not abuse that discretion by denying fees where the evidence
objectively supports a feasible claim. See James-Cornelius, 984 F.3d at 1381.
IV. 	Analysis of Reasonable Basis
Respondent did not raise any specific objection regarding reasonable basis in this matter
but instead deferred to the Court’s discretion in determining whether the statutory requirements
for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met. See Response at 2. While respondent noted that
a claim must rest on more than a mere scintilla of evidence, and that reasonable basis is an objective
standard distinct from good faith, respondent did not argue that petitioner’s claim lacked a factual
or jurisdictional foundation. Id. at 2-3.
I find that, based on the contemporaneous medical records and petitioner’s corroborating
affidavit, reasonable basis existed for filing and maintaining this claim. Mr. Boon’s affidavit,
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 9 of 13

10
executed on May 28, 2019, attests that he was in his usual state of health at the time of receiving
the flu vaccination on September 27, 2016, and that approximately 27 days later her developed
severe flu-like symptoms followed by progressive numbness in his hands and feet by the end of
December 2016. Pet. Ex. 2 at 2. He reported that these symptoms prompted medical treatment and
multiple hospitalizations, ultimately leading to a diagnosis of GBS, which he believed resulted
from the flu vaccine. Id. at 2. His statements are consistent with the early clinical course
documented in the medical records, which reflect onset of bilateral upper- and lower-extremity
numbness in December 2016, followed by rapidly progressive weakness necessitating emergency
evaluation on December 31, 2016. Pet. Ex. 5 at 41, 142.
Petitioner’s medical records corroborate his onset of neurological illness in the weeks
following the September 2016 flu vaccine. In January 2017, he was admitted for evaluation of
sudden bilateral limb weakness, with a differential diagnosis including polyneuropathy and GBS.
Pet. Ex. 5 at 87, 91. Subsequent neurology evaluations documented quadriparesis and areflexia,
findings consistent with demyelinating neuropathy. Pet. Ex. 6. at 17-19; Pet. Ex. 11 at 6. Although
later records reflected alternative or overlapping diagnosis, such as cervical myelopathy and CIDP,
the medical record reflects that Mr. Boon’s treating providers considered a possible vaccine-related
etiology. His treating neurologists prescribed IVIG, a standard therapy for GBS and CIDP, and
contemporaneous notes referenced possible post-infectious or autoimmune neuropathic processes
following vaccination. Pet. Ex. 14 at 1-2; Pet. Ex. 15 at 73.
While the evidence was ultimately insufficient to establish entitlement, a finding of
reasonable basis requires a burden lower than is required for entitlement. Cottingham, 971 F.3d at
1345-46. Rather, the inquiry is whether the record, viewed objectively, contains evidentiary
support for the claim’s feasibility. Here, the petition was supported by: (1) a detailed affidavit
describing temporal onset and progression of neurological symptoms; (2) contemporaneous
medical documentation of ascending weakness and numbness in the weeks following vaccination;
and (3) repeated diagnostic assessments exploring GBS as a plausible cause. Together, these facts
constitute more than a mere scintilla of evidence of a potential vaccine-related injury but were
certainly insufficient for a finding of entitlement.
Special masters have underscored the importance of awarding attorneys’ fees to encourage
the participation of competent legal counsel in the Vaccine Program. As the Special Master stated
in Iannuzzi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.:
Simply put, the ultimate purpose of Vaccine Act fees and costs
awards is not to benefit the attorneys involved, but to ensure that
Vaccine Act petitioners will have adequate access to competent
counsel. . . . Accordingly, when attorneys spend a reasonable
amount of time and costs in representing Vaccine Act petitioners,
such attorneys must be fairly compensated for their expenditures, in
order to encourage attorneys to participate in future Vaccine Act
cases.
No. 02-780V, 2007 WL 1032379, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2007), rev'd in part, 78
Fed. Cl. 1 (2007); see also James-Cornelius, 984 F.3d at 1381 (In exercising her discretion to
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 10 of 13

11
award attorneys’ fees, the special master must keep in mind the remedial objective of maintaining
petitioners’ access to willing and qualified legal assistance.).
Further, after all the evidence was filed and while a Motion for Ruling on the Record was
pending, petitioner filed a Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in April 2024. ECF No.
59. In response thereto, respondent deferred to the special master to determine whether the
petitioner had met the legal standard for an interim fees and costs award, and regarding whether
the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs were met in this case. ECF
No. 60. Respondent did not raise reasonable basis at that time. A Decision awarding attorneys’
fees and costs was issued. ECF No. 61. The parties filed a Joint Notice Not to Seek Review of that
Decision. ECF No. 63. There has been no substantive change in the evidence since the Motion for
Interim Fees was filed, except that my Decision denying Entitlement has issued. But as noted
previously, the standard for reasonable basis is substantially lower than that required to find that
petitioner is entitled to an award.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that there was reasonable basis for the filing of the petition
and throughout the pendency of the matter.
V. 	Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Calculation
A. Reasonable Hourly Rate
A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Avera v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs, 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In general, this rate
is based on “the forum rate for the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic
area of the practice of petitioner's attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 632 F.3d
1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that
provides for attorney's fees to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's
work is done outside the forum jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between
the local hourly rate and forum hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See
Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cnty. Solid Waste
Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining
the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys’ fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See
McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and
has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years.6
Here, petitioner requests an hourly rate of $365 for his counsel, Mr. Randy Knutson, for
all work performed in this case for the year 2024. Motion for Fees, ECF No. 73. This rate is
6 The OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules are available on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims website
at https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-rate-fee-schedules.The hourly rates contained within
the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL
5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 11 of 13

12
consistent with what counsel has been awarded previously, and I find it reasonable herein. See
Delory v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1648V, 2025 WL 2793129, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 2, 2025). Accordingly, the hourly rates are awarded as requested.
Petitioner also requested $140 per hour for all paralegal work performed in 2024. Motion for
Fees, ECF No. 73-2 at 4. These rates have also been awarded in previous cases, and so I find them
reasonable here. See, e.g., Delory, 2025 WL 2793129, at *3.
B. Hours Reasonably Expended
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 ex rel. Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434
(1983)). “Unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a single
task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing excessively
for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys entering
erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 703 (2016).
While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be comparable to
what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
08–243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). Clerical and secretarial
tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL
5634323, at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at one-half of the normal hourly
attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08–756V, 2014 WL 2885684, at *3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And “it is inappropriate for counsel to bill
time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No 14–1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18,
2016). Ultimately, 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.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522.
In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number of hours submitted by a
percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 728–29 (affirming the Special
Master’s reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 38 Fed.
Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).
The overall hours spent on this matter appear reasonable. See Motion for Fees, ECF No.
73-2 at 1-4. I have reviewed the billing entries and find that they adequately describe the work
performed and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable,
nor has respondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded final
attorneys’ fees of $4,316.50.
C. Reasonable Costs
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992).
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 12 of 13

13
Petitioner requests a reimbursement of $80.00 in costs. See Motion for Fees, ECF No. 73-
2 at 5-8. Petitioner represents that this amount reflects the filing fee paid in connection with related
probate proceedings in Blue Earth County, Minnesota. Id. Such costs “are generally compensable
under the Vaccine Act if establishing the estate . . . is ‘an essential prerequisite condition’ to
obtaining an award that must ‘be fulfilled in order for [the] award to be made.’” Bennett v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-65V, 2017 WL 3816094, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7,
2017) (quoting Haber v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-458 V, 2011 WL
839111, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 14, 2011)). Such was the case here, where petitioner
passed away during the pendency of this case, as did his wife, who was the administrator of his
estate. The undersigned finds the costs adequately documented and reasonable considering the
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded $80.00 in costs.
VI. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED.
Petitioner is hereby awarded a total of $4,396.50, representing $4,316.50 in attorneys’ fees and
$80.00 in costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for
prompt disbursement. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the
right to seek review.
Case 1:19-vv-00788-UNJ Document 78 Filed 01/05/26 Page 13 of 13