1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *

TIMOTHY ANDERSON, *

* No. 16-752V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: November 6, 2018

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *

Danielle A. Strait, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner;

Adriana R. Teitel, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Timothy Anderson prevailed in his claim brought in the National Childhood 

Vaccine Compensation Program. He is now seeking an award for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. He is awarded $25,323.88. 

* * *

On June 27, 2016, Mr. Anderson filed for compensation under the Nation 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 – 34, for injuries 

sustained from a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccination administered on 

July 22, 2013. The parties submitted a joint stipulation that was incorporated by a 

decision awarding petitioner compensation in the amount of $235,000.00. 

Decision, 2018 WL 615074 (Jan. 2, 2018).

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Following the entry of judgment, petitioner filed a motion for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s Mot., filed June 28, 2018. The motion seeks a 

total of $25,520.18, comprised of $20,604.30 in attorneys’ fees and $4,915.88 in 

attorneys’ costs. Id. at 1-2. In compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner 

filed a signed statement indicating that he did not incur any costs personally. 

Exhibit 13 at 1 (General Order #9 Statement).

Respondent then filed a response to petitioner’s motion. Resp’t’s Resp.,

filed July 12, 2018. Respondent stated that he is “satisfied that the statutory 

requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id at 

2. Respondent did not submit any specific objections to the amounts requested by 

petitioner and “recommends that the Special Master exercise his discretion.” Id at 

3. 

On July 16, 2018, petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s response. 

Petitioner generally objects to respondent’s failure to evaluate the fees petition and 

provide specific positions on the amounts requested. Pet’r’s Reply, filed July 16, 

2018, at 2-3. Petitioner reiterated his request for fees and costs.

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

* * *

Because Mr. Anderson received compensation, he is entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–15(e). An evaluation of 

the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees and costs follows. 

I. Attorneys’ Fees

The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. This is a two-step 

process. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). First, a court determines an “initial estimate ... by ‘multiplying the 

number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly 

rate.’” Id. at 1347-48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). 

Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial 

calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348. Here, because 

the lodestar process yields a reasonable result, no additional adjustments are 

required. Instead, the analysis focuses on the elements of the lodestar formula, a 

reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours. 
3

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate 

Under the Vaccine Act, special masters, in general, should use the forum 

(District of Columbia) rate in the lodestar calculation. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349. 

Since, the bulk of work was done within the District of Columbia, the so-called 

Davis County does not apply here. Id. 1349 (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. 

and Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 

755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). The respondent did not object to any of the proposed 

hourly rates as unreasonable.

Petitioner requests compensation for attorney Danielle Strait and various 

law clerks. For Ms. Strait, petitioner requests the rates of $300/hour in 2016, 

$320/hour in 2017, and $322/hour in 2018. For the law clerks, petitioner requests 

rates ranging from $105/hour to $148/hour over the time period of 2016-2018. 

As noted in Russell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Ms. Strait’s 2018 

rate was found reasonable, but her 2016 and 2017 rates were found unreasonable 

because they were outside the permissible range of hourly rates for an attorney 

with her level of experience. No. 16-1091V, 2018 WL 3989456, at *6 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. July 17, 2018) (for 2016 and 2017, Ms. Strait was within the 4-7 years 

of experience range). Here, Ms. Strait requested the 2016 ($300/hour) and 2018 

($322/hour) rates that were found reasonable in Russell, but her requested 2017 

rate was still the rate found unreasonable in Russell ($320/hour). Thus, Ms. 

Strait’s 2017 rate is reduced to $307/hour (resulting in a deduction of $196.30). 

Ms. Strait’s 2016 and 2018 rates are reasonable and are awarded in full. The rates 

for the law clerks at Ms. Strait’s firm have previously been found reasonable and 

are awarded in full. Beck v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1355V, 2018 

WL 5118548, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 9, 2018).

B. Reasonable Number of Hours 

The second factor in the lodestar formula is a reasonable number of hours. 

Reasonable hours are not excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. See

Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

The Secretary also did not directly challenge any of the requested hours as 

unreasonable. 

In light of the Secretary’s lack of objection, the undersigned has reviewed 

the fee application for its reasonableness. See Shea v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 13-737V, 2015 WL 9594109, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 

2015) (“special masters are not obligated to evaluate an attorney’s billing records 
4

on a line-by-line basis in making the reasonableness determination ... and certainly 

need not do so when Respondent has not attempted to highlight any specific 

alleged inefficiencies”). Ms. Strait has provided sufficiently detailed invoices for 

her time entries and for her paralegal’s entries. The undersigned finds the hours to 

be reasonable and awards them in full. 

II. Costs

Petitioner requests a total of $4,915.88 in attorney’s costs, consisting of 

costs expended for the filing fee, medical records, mailings, and expert witnesses. 

Exhibit 14 at 1. Respondent has not objected to the amounts requested for 

attorneys’ costs. The costs for routine items, such as the filing fee, medical 

records, and postage, are adequately documented and are awarded in full.

The majority of the attorneys’ costs are for consulting services with LitCon 

Group ($4,012.50). As noted in their invoice, LitCon Group provided lost wages 

analysis for petitioner that was presumably used during the settlement process. 

Exhibit 14 at pdf 25. The undersigned finds that the costs for LitCon group are 

reasonable and are awarded in full.

III. Conclusion 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

§15(e). The undersigned GRANTS the petitioner’s motion and finds $25,323.88

($20,408.00 in fees and $4,915.88 in costs) to be a reasonable amount for all 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred. This shall be paid as follows:

A lump sum of $25,323.88 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Danielle A. Strait, for attorneys’ fees and 

costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 

the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint 

filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.