HORVATH v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-2084V
JAMES HORVATH,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 8, 2025
Elizabeth Hess, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Alyssa M. Petroff, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On December 18, 2024, James Horvath 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 that he suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration as a result of the administration of his December 19,
2022 influenza vaccination. Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 26, 2025, I issued a decision
awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 19.
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-02084-UNJ Document 29 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner has now filed a final motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an
award 	of 	$20,758.65 	(representing 	$19,469.10 	in 	fees 	plus 	$1,289.55 	in 	costs).
Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed August 29, 2025 at ECF No. 23.
Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-
of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 23.
Respondent 	reacted to the Motion reporting 	that he is satisfied 	the statutory
requirements for an award of final attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but defers
resolution of the amount to be awarded for both interim and final fees, to my discretion.
Motions at 2-4, ECF No. 24. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a
minor 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
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
Case 1:24-vv-02084-UNJ Document 29 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
A. Hourly Rates
The hourly rates requested by Elizabeth Hess, Jonathan Svitak and supporting
paralegals 	for all 	time billed 	herein 	are 	reasonable 	and 	consistent 	with 	our 	prior
determinations and shall be awarded. However, Mr. Joseph Shannon’s billing entries
reflect the wrong hourly rate for year 2024. See Wood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 24-0130, 	Slip Op. 39 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 25, 2025) (awarding 	attorney
Shannon the rate of $531.00 for 2024). I find no reason to deviate from that determination
and it otherwise is not the practice of OSM to adjust prior rate determinations upward in
later cases. See Jefferson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1882V, 2023 WL
387051 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2023). 	Accordingly, I hereby reduce Mr. Shannon’s
2024 rate to be consistent with Wood. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of
fees to be awarded herein by $9.50.3
B. Administrative Tasks
Upon review of the billing records submitted, it appears that several billing entries
charged herein are for tasks considered clerical or administrative. It is well established
that administrative work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included
within the attorney’s fee rates.” 	Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Dingle v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-579V, 2014 WL 630473, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Jan. 24, 2014). And “[B]illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted
in the Vaccine Program.” Mostovoy, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (citing Rochester, 18 Cl. Ct.
at 387). Accordingly, I deny reimbursement of administrative tasks claimed herein,
reducing the amount of fees to be awarded by $270.80.4
3 This amount consists of reducing Joseph Shannon’s 2024 rate and is calculated as f ollows: ($550.00 -
$531.00 = $19.00 x 0.50 hours) = $9.50.
4 This amount consists of the following administrative billing entries: 11/17/23: “Organized new case by
converting lead to case on MyCase, setting up f olders on server.” 12/19/24: “Access HRSA portal and
submit filed petition. Complete all requested information related to case. Confirm submission is complete.”
1/8/25: “Prepare remaining sets of medical records as exhibits, label and bates stamp in preparation f or
f iling.” 1/15/25: “Prepare Duly Plainfield records as exhibit, label and bates stamp.” 8/27/25: “File Election
to Accept Judgment with the USCFC.” Reflecting a combined total of $270.80 in administrative billing
entries.
Case 1:24-vv-02084-UNJ Document 29 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No.
23-4. 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
Motions for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs
in the total amount of $20,478.35 (representing $19,188.80 in fees plus $1,289.55 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 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-02084-UNJ Document 29 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 4