In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: May 4, 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

ARCHANA CHANDER on behalf *

of her minor child, L.M., *

*

Petitioner, * No. 18-151V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Julia M. Collison, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On January 31, 2018, Archana Chander (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of her minor child, 

L.M.

2 Petitioner alleged that L.M. suffered idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura as a result of the 

measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination L.M. received on May 1, 2015. On January 12, 2021, the 

parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation 

on January 13, 2021. ECF No. 67,

On January 14, 2021, Petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF 

No. 69 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of 

$46,728.14, representing $38,223.50 in attorneys’ fees and $8,504.64 in attorneys’ costs. Fees 

1 The undersigned intends to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the Ruling 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 information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 

the undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion 

of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

App. at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that she has not incurred any costs 

related to this litigation. Fees App. Ex. 3. Respondent filed a response on January 21, 2021, 

indicating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees 

and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2, ECF No. 72.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the Special Master to award “reasonable 

attorneys' fees, and other costs.” § 300aa–15(e)(1)(A)–(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, 

even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible so long as the Special Master finds that the petition 

was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant 

to a stipulation, she is entitled to an award of final reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

It is “well within the special master's discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. 

Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines 

v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant 

the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys' fees and 

costs.”). Applications for attorneys' fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing 

records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin 

v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the 

relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The “prevailing market rate” 

is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable 

skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. The petitioner bears the burden of providing 

adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

a. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests compensation for her counsel at the following rates: for Mr. Andrew 

Downing, $385.00 per hour for work performed in 2016-2020, and for Ms. Courtney Van Cott, 

$205.00 per hour for work performed in 2018-2019 and $275.00 per hour for work performed in 

2020. These rates are consistent with what Mr. Downing and Ms. Van Cott have previously been 

awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and I find them to be reasonable for the instant case.

b. Reasonable Hours Expended

Attorneys' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are 

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well-established that billing for 

administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States, 
3

18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-1616V, 2018 WL 

2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).

The overall hours spent on this matter appear to be largely reasonable. The undersigned 

has reviewed the billing entries and finds that they adequately describe the work done on the case 

and the amount of time spent on that work. However, a small amount must be reduced due to 

duplicative work between Ms. Van Cott and firm paralegals for reviewing filings. Upon review, a 

reasonable reduction for these issues is $500.00 Petitioner is awarded final attorneys’ fees in the 

amount of $37,723.50.

c. Attorneys’ Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. 

Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests 

a total of $8,504.64 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 37-39. This amount is comprised of 

acquiring medical records, postage, the Court’s filing fee, and work performed by Petitioner’s 

medical expert, Dr. Sanjiv Modi. All of these costs are typical of Vaccine Program litigation and 

are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience.

3 Petitioner has provided adequate documentation 

supporting the request. 

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned has 

reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and 

costs, other than the reductions delineated above, is reasonable. The undersigned finds that it is 

reasonable to compensate Petitioner and her counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $38,223.50

(Reduction to Fees) - ($500.00)

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $37,723.50

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $8,504.64

(Reduction to Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $8,504.64

Total Amount Awarded $46,228.14

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $46,228.14, 

representing reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check 

payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel of record, Mr. Andrew Downing.

3

In this case, Dr. Modi billed his time at $500.00 per hour. The undersigned finds the rate reasonable for 

work performed in the instant case. The undersigned is not endorsing $500.00 per hour as a reasonable 

hourly rate for Dr. Modi in all situations or future cases and reserves the right to determine a reasonable 

rate for the work performed in future cases.
4

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

court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler

 Katherine E. Oler

Special Master

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

Vaccine Rule 11(a).