Mehl v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Mehl
Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided
June 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1586V SANDRA MEHL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 19, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan J. Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodbridge, IL, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On October 25, 2022, Sandra Mehl 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis vaccine received on June 10, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On December 9, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 36. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $27,255.29 (representing $26,339.80 in fees plus $915.49 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed December 30, 2024. ECF No. 40. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 3. Respondent reacted to the motion on December 30, 2024, reporting that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 41. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons listed below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to 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 priv
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Mehl v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Date: June 30, 2025
Citation: Unknown
In this case, Sandra Mehl filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Act), alleging a shoulder injury related to the administration of a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis vaccine received on June 10, 2020. The case was presided over by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.
Key Legal Issues
- Vaccine Injury Compensation: The case revolves around the Vaccine Act, which allows for compensation for injuries caused by vaccines.
- Attorney's Fees and Costs: The petitioner sought an award for attorney's fees and costs incurred during the proceedings.
Court's Decision
The court granted, in part, the petitioner's motion for attorney's fees and costs, awarding a total of $27,226.49. This amount included $26,311.00 in attorney's fees and $915.49 in costs. The decision emphasized the importance of reasonable fees under the Vaccine Act.
Legal Reasoning
The court analyzed the petitioner's request for attorney's fees based on the following considerations:
- Reasonableness of Fees: The Vaccine Act permits reasonable attorney's fees for successful claimants, as outlined in Section 15(e). The petitioner must provide detailed billing records to justify the fees.
- Burden of Proof: The petitioner bears the burden of establishing the hours expended and the rates charged. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel should exclude hours that are excessive or unnecessary.
- Discretion of the Special Master: The special master has the discretion to reduce fees based on experience and judgment, without needing to conduct a line-by-line analysis of the fee application.
Key Holdings
- The court found the hourly rates requested for attorneys to be reasonable, adopting the proposed rates except for one attorney, whose rate was adjusted downward.
- The court awarded the full amount of claimed costs, as they were supported by adequate documentation.
Precedents and Citations
- National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Act), 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq.
- Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008) - outlining requirements for fee requests.
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) - establishing standards for reasonable attorney's fees.
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) - discussing excessive and redundant hours.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the following practical implications for legal practitioners and claimants:
- Understanding the Vaccine Act: Legal professionals must be well-versed in the provisions of the Vaccine Act to effectively represent clients seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries.
- Documentation of Fees: Attorneys should maintain detailed and contemporaneous billing records to substantiate their fee requests, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
- Discretion in Fee Awards: The discretion exercised by the special master in determining reasonable fees highlights the need for attorneys to present compelling evidence of their qualifications and the necessity of the hours billed.
In conclusion, the Mehl v. Secretary of Health and Human Services case serves as a critical reference for understanding the procedural and substantive aspects of vaccine injury claims and the associated legal fees under the Vaccine Act.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 30, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools