In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: September 25, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

CHARLES J. STREET, *

*

Petitioner, * No. 18-1707V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Erin A. Juzapavicus, Milam Howard Nicandri Dees & Gillam, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for 

Petitioner.

Lynn C. Schlie, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On November 2, 2018, Charles J. Street (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 

(2012). Petitioner alleged that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome following an influenza 

vaccination he received on November 4, 2015. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On September 11, 2019, 

Petitioner filed a status report, wherein Petitioner’s counsel noted that since the Court’s August 

12, 2019 Order to Show Cause, counsel has attempted to contact Petitioner seven times but with 

no response. Accordingly, on September 17, 2019, the undersigned dismissed the petition for 

failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. ECF No. 19.

On April 18, 2020, Petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF 

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 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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

No. 22 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of 

$12,171.67, representing $10,559.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,612.17 in attorneys’ costs. Fees 

App. Ex. 1 at 9-10. Counsel for Petitioner has indicated that she was unable to obtain a signed 

statement pursuant to General Order No. 9 from her client but, to the best of her knowledge, 

“Counsel for Petitioner has advanced all costs and Petitioner has not personally paid nor incurred 

any costs or fees associated with this application.” ECF No. 26. Respondent responded to the 

motion on May 4, 2020, stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned 

“exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s 

Resp. at 2-3, ECF No. 23. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

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, although the petition was eventually dismissed, it was due 

primarily to Petitioner’s decision to cease all communication with his counsel, thus resulting in 

the petition being dismissed for failure to prosecute. The undersigned does not doubt that the case 

was filed in a good faith belief that Petitioner’s injury was caused by his vaccination, and the case 

had a reasonable basis to proceed for as long as it did. Respondent also has not challenged the 

good faith or reasonable basis of the claim. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner is entitled to a final 

award of 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 that his counsel, Ms. Erin Juzapavicus, be compensated at an hourly 

rate of $325.00 per hour for all work performed in this case (spanning from 2016-2019). Data on 
3

a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Juzapavicus is scarce. She has had numerous Vaccine Program 

cases but the majority of them were closed between 2010 and 2015, when attorneys’ fees and costs 

were typically handled by the parties through a submitted stipulation. However, two more recent 

cases provide some information as to a reasonable hourly rate. In Lewis v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 15-1078V, Ms. Juzapavicus requested and was awarded an hourly rate of 

$285.00 per hour for all work performed from 2013-2016. Similarly, in Greek v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., No. 15-178V, Ms. Juzapavicus requested and was awarded an hourly rate of 

$285.00 per hour for all work performed through 2017. Accordingly, in the instant case the 

undersigned finds that a reasonable hourly rate for counsel’s work through 2017 is $285.00 per 

hour. See, e.g. Ramirez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1180V, 2019 WL 948385, at

*2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2019) (noting that counsel “should only submit billing logs that 

reflect the hourly rate previously awarded to him.”).

The undersigned finds Ms. Juzapavicus’s requested hourly rate to be reasonable for her 

work in 2018 and 2019. Application of these rates results in a reduction of $256.00.3

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, 

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).

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has 

provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and, upon review, the 

undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Respondent also did not 

indicate that he finds any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is 

entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,303.50.

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 (1992). Petitioner requests a total 

of $1,612.17 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 10. This amount is comprised of acquiring 

medical records, the Court’s filing fee, and postage. All of these costs are typical of Vaccine 

Program litigation and are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. Petitioner has provided 

adequate documentation supporting the request. Accordingly, the requested attorneys’ costs are 

reasonable and shall be reimbursed in full.

II. Conclusion

3

($325.00 per hour requested - $285.00 per hour awarded) * 6.4 hours of work billed in 2016 and 2017 = 

$256.00.
4

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 his counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $10,559.50

(Reduction to Fees) - ($256.00)

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $10,303.50

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $1,612.17

(Reduction to Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $1,612.17

Total Amount Awarded $11,915.67

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $11,915.67, 

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

payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel of record, Ms. Erin Juzapavicus.

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).