Vaccine Court Awards Lawyers Nearly $500K in Fees After Losing Flu Shot Case

**Vaccine Court Slashes Fees in Losing Flu Shot Case**

A decade-long battle over flu vaccine injury compensation ended in denial for petitioner Richard Greenslade, but his lawyers still pocketed nearly $500,000 in fees from the U.S. government—after a 10% haircut for inefficiency. The ruling in the Court of Federal Claims spotlights how even failed claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program trigger hefty taxpayer payouts for “reasonable” legal costs. While this saga unfolds in vaccine law, it echoes in crypto battles where plaintiffs chase fees regardless of victory, signaling regulators’ deep pockets fuel prolonged fights.

The lawsuit kicked off in 2014 when Greenslade claimed a flu shot triggered transverse myelitis, a spinal inflammation. After years of expert reports—from neuroimmunologist Lawrence Steinman to newcomer Carlo Tornatore—Special Master Daniel Horner rejected causation in June 2024, dismissing the case. Undeterred, lawyers filed for $551,480 in fees and costs in January 2025, citing a decade of litigation; the government offered no opposition.

Horner greenlit most of the request but trimmed 10%—$52,831 total—for two red flags: petitioner’s last-minute expert switch that bloated billable hours, and overkill from three top-billing attorneys (Durant, Milmoe, MacLeod) duplicating efforts on briefs, strategy, and hearings. Using the “lodestar” formula—hours times rates, adjusted for reasonableness—the court awarded $498,648.82 in fees/costs plus $7.25 personal expenses, paid via ACH to counsel. Greenslade loses on injury pay but wins a fat attorney check; taxpayers foot the bill, unchanged rules intact.

In plain terms, the Vaccine Act guarantees lawyers fees even in losing cases if work seems “reasonable,” giving special masters wide latitude to prune excess—like redundant experts or attorney teams—without needing government pushback. Here, unchecked billing ran hot, but the government’s silence softened the cuts from potentially steeper.

**Crypto-Market Impact Analysis:** This fee award underscores a playbook crypto litigants exploit against the SEC: sue boldly, rack up experts and hours, collect regardless of loss—mirroring how Ripple or Coinbase lawyers bleed regulators dry, shifting authority dynamics as agencies hesitate on endless fee exposure. It heightens decentralization vs. regulation tension, where DeFi protocols face similar no-win fee traps if classified as securities, while exchanges like Kraken eye precedents to cap costs. Stablecoin issuers and token traders gain sentiment boost—lawsuits become low-risk gambles on payouts—but brace for CFTC/SEC pushback with tighter fee scrutiny, juicing volatility as markets price in prolonged legal wars.

Bet on more crypto fee grabs: opportunity for savvy plaintiffs, warning for strapped regulators.