Engel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 23-0850V

Sharon Engel filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a shoulder injury from a flu vaccine received on September 14, 2021.
The Special Master previously awarded compensation to Engel based on respondent’s proffer.
Engel’s counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting $25,149.02 ($23,963.20 in fees, $1,185.82 in costs), with supporting documentation.
The government (respondent) agreed statutory requirements were met, but left the specific amount to the court's discretion without objecting to the billed rates or costs.
The Special Master reviewed the billing records and found certain requested attorney’s rates and certain billing entries unjustified or inaccurately billed, requiring reductions.
The court awarded Engel $24,689.62 ($23,503.80 in fees, $1,185.82 in costs), a reduction reflecting non-attorney rates where documentation was lacking and adjusting for paralegal-rate tasks.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Reasonableness of Attorney’s Hourly Rates	Claimed standard hourly rates for all attorneys	Did not object, left amount to court’s discretion	Approved most rates; reduced rate due to lack of proof
Billing Certain Tasks at Attorney Rates	Sought attorney rates for all hours billed	Did not object	Reduced for paralegal-type tasks billed at attorney rate
Sufficiency of Documentation for Fee Application	Submitted billing records and costs	No specific objection	Found documentation generally sufficient
Reasonableness of Claimed Costs	All costs were reasonable and documented	No objection	All costs approved

Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Special masters have discretion to reduce hours and fees to a reasonable amount for the work performed)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (Counsel must exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours from fee requests)
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (2011) (Line-by-line analysis is not required for fee reductions)
Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (1991) (Burden is on petitioner to establish reasonableness of hours and expenses)