Fadhil v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 18-816

Petitioner Ali Fadhil filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome after a Tdap vaccination (petition filed June 8, 2018).
The parties filed a stipulation, and the Special Master adopted it, awarding compensation on August 28, 2020.
Petitioner moved for final attorneys’ fees and costs on February 26, 2021, requesting $40,531.50 in attorneys’ fees, $468.59 in attorneys’ costs, and stating he personally incurred a $400 filing fee.
Respondent took no substantive position opposing an award and left the amount to the Special Master’s discretion.
The Special Master found the proposed hourly rates reasonable but reduced the requested attorneys’ fees by 15% ($6,079.72) for excessive/duplicative billing (interoffice communications, vague entries, attorney work of paralegal nature).
Final award: $34,451.78 in attorneys’ fees, $468.59 in attorneys’ costs, and $400 reimbursement to petitioner — total $35,320.37; checks to be issued as directed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to fees after stipulated compensation	Fadhil sought reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act following a successful stipulation.	Respondent asserted no formal role but agreed statutory requirements for fees were met and deferred to Special Master discretion.	Entitlement established; Special Master awarded fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑15(e).
Proper hourly rates	Counsel requested previously‑awarded local rates for Ms. Chin‑Caplan and Mr. Mason (2016–2020 rates provided).	Respondent did not contest the requested rates.	Forum/D.C. rate rule noted but Davis County exception applied; requested rates were accepted as reasonable.
Reasonable number of hours billed	Petitioner submitted detailed billing records supporting time spent.	Respondent raised no direct challenges to hours but left reasonableness to the Special Master.	Special Master reduced fees by 15% ($6,079.72) due to excessive interoffice communication, vague entries, and attorney billing for paralegal tasks.
Reimbursement of costs (records, filing fee)	Requested $468.59 for records/postage and $400 filing fee reimbursement.	Respondent did not object.	All costs supported and awarded in full: $468.59 to counsel and $400 reimbursed to petitioner.

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorsing lodestar two‑step for Vaccine Act fees)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (lodestar multiplication of hours by reasonable rate)
Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (forum‑rate exception where most work occurs outside forum at lower rates)
McIntosh v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. 238 (2018) (review for reasonableness when respondent does not contest fee request)
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fees not recoverable for excessive or unnecessary hours)
Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (2009) (reductions appropriate for inefficiency when multiple attorneys staff a case)
Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (2016) (same: staffing inefficiency can justify reductions)
Valdes v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 89 Fed. Cl. 415 (2009) (attorney time performing paralegal tasks may be reduced or reclassified)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (reasonableness standard and concept of "rough justice" in fee awards)
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (fees and costs must be reasonable)