In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1293V

Filed: September 20, 2017

************************************ Special Master Sanders

ANA YURICEK, as Administratrix of *

the Estate of JEREMY YURICEK, * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Adjusted Hourly 

Deceased, and ANA YURICEK, * Rates.

Individually, *

 *

Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

Respondent. *

*

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

Seth D. Bader, Bloomberg, Steinberg, and Bader, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Justine E. Walters, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On October 30, 2015, Ana Yuricek (“Petitioner”), on behalf of herself and as 

administratrix of the estate of Jeremy Yuricek (“Mr. Yuricek”), petitioned for compensation 

under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012).2 

Petitioner alleged that the administration of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

 

1 This decision shall be posted 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). In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that 

satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a 

motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such 

material will be deleted from public access. 

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. 

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2012) 

(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
October 4, 2013, caused Mr. Yuricek to develop acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

(“ADEM”), resulting in his death. Petition at Preamble, ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2016, Special 

Master Hamilton-Fieldman issued a decision pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation on 

Damages. Decision, ECF No. 25.

On August 4, 2017, Petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Petitioner requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of $49,790 and attorneys’ costs in the amount 

of $13,962.85. See Pet’r’s Mot. Att’ys’ Fees and Costs at 8, ECF No. 34. Petitioner also 

requested costs personally incurred in the course of this litigation in the amount of $1,046.40. Id.

at 9. Respondent indicated that “[t]o the extent the Special Master is treating [P]etitioner’s 

request for attorneys’ fees and costs as a motion that requires a response from [R]espondent . . . 

Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are 

met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2 (Aug. 18, 2017), ECF No. 35. Respondent recommended 

that the undersigned exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Id. at 3. Petitioner filed a brief reply shortly thereafter reiterating her argument for an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s Reply (Aug. 18, 2017), ECF No. 36.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The 

Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . 

by ‘multiplying the numbers 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.

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, 465 U.S. at 895. 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. Hourly Rates
Special Master Gowen determined the reasonable forum rate ranges for attorneys with 

varying years of experience. McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 

WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 

6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). Pursuant to McCulloch, a forum attorney with 

more than 20 years of experience may be awarded $350 to $425 per hour. Id. An attorney with 

less than four years of experience, on the other hand, has a reasonable hourly rate between $150 

and $225. Id.

In the instant case, Petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Bader, requests a rate of $450 for work 

performed from 2014 to 2016. Pet’r’s Mot. at 8. This rate requires adjustment. Mr. Bader has 

been a member of the State Bar of New York and New Jersey since 1984. Id. at 7. In 2014, Mr. 

Bader had been practicing law for 30 years, but had little experience in the Vaccine Program. 

Under the Court’s Fee Schedule,

3

an attorney with 20-30 years of experience is entitled to hourly 

rates between $350-$415 for work performed in 2015 and 2016. 4 The requested rate of $450 is 

not within this range. Based on Mr. Bader’s limited experience with Vaccine Program cases and 

30 years of practice, the undersigned finds $385 to be a reasonable rate for work performed from

2014-2016. Mr. Bader’s rate for 2017 also requires some adjustment. The Court’s Fee Schedule 

for 2017 provides that attorneys with the most experience (31+ years), may reasonably be 

awarded $394-$440. 5 The undersigned will award Mr. Bader $395 for 2017, based on his 

minimal experience in the Vaccine Program and more than 31 years of practice. The total fee 

reduction for Mr. Bader’s hourly rate is $6,367.50.

Mr. Bader also requested an hourly rate of $200 for travel time in 2016 and 2017. ECF 

No. 34-2 at 4, 7. Following Gruber, the undersigned will grant half the attorney’s rate for 

traveling, where the attorney does not provide documentation that she or he performed work 

while traveling. 91 Fed. Cl. 773, 791 (2010); see also Amani v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 14-150V, 2017 WL 772536, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2017). Therefore, for travel 

time in 2016, Mr. Bader’s hourly rate is reduced to $192.50; for 2017, the rate is reduced to 

$197.50. The total fee reduction for travel time is $87.75.

 

3 The 2015-2016 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2015-

2016.pdf. The hourly rates contained in the 2015-2016 Fee Schedule are updated from the 

decision McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

4 Since the Court did not have a fee schedule in 2014, the Court’s 2015-2016 Fee Schedule is 

applied to Mr. Bader’s hourly rate for 2014.

5 The 2017 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2017.pdf. 

The hourly rates contained in the 2017 Fee Schedule are updated from the decision McCulloch v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 

2015).
b. Hours Expended

Petitioner requests compensation for 117.2 hours entered by Mr. Bader, which includes 

12.9 hours for travel time. Petitioner also requests compensation for 2.2 hours entered by Mr. 

Bader’s paralegal. See generally Pet’r’s Mot. Petitioner submitted adequate billing logs listing 

the date, amount of time, individual, and the nature of each task. Based on the lack of objection 

from Respondent and my review of Petitioner’s motion, I find that the hours expended are 

reasonable and should be awarded in full.

c. Costs

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

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

$13,962.85 in attorneys’ costs to Bloomberg, Steinberg, and Bader (“BS&B”). These costs are 

associated with expert expenses, medical research expenses, postage, travel for mediation, and

filing fees. See generally ECF No. 34-2. Petitioner also requests $1,046.40 for costs personally 

incurred, which are incidental to her appointment as Guardian of the Property of each of her 

children. ECF No. 34-5. Lastly, Petitioner requests the following for services related to her 

appointment as administratrix of her husband’s estate and as Guardian of the Property of her 

children: $3,500 to Ron Katter, Esq.; $10,115.63 to Sax, Sax & Caplan, Esqs.; and $413.15 to 

Schulman Blitz, LLP. The undersigned finds them to be reasonable and awards them in full.

II. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that Petitioner is entitled to the following 

award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $49,790

(Reduction to Mr. Bader’s Hourly Rate from 2014) -$481

(Reduction to Mr. Bader’s Hourly Rate from 2015) -$747.50

(Reduction to Mr. Bader’s Hourly Rate from 2016) -$3,423

(Reduction to Mr. Bader’s Hourly Rate for Travel from 2016) -$83.25

(Reduction to Mr. Bader’s Hourly Rate in 2017) -$1,716

(Reduction to Mr. Bader’s Hourly Rate for Travel from 2017) -$4.50

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $43,334.75

Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $13,962.85

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $57,297.60

The undersigned has reviewed Petitioner’s counsel’s detailed records of time and 

expenses incurred in this case, and they are reasonable. In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned finds that Petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the following amounts: (1)

$57,297.60, in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, Seth D. Bader, of Bloomberg, Steinberg, & Bader; (2) $3,500, in the form of a 
check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Ron Katter, Esq.; (3) $10,115.63, in the form 

of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Sax, Sax & Caplan, Esqs.; (4) $413.15, in 

the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Schulman Blitz, LLP; and (5) 

$1,046.40, in the form of a check made payable to Petitioner only. 6

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.7

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Herbrina D. Sanders 

Herbrina D. Sanders 

Special Master 

6 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award 

encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for 

legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or 

collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See 

generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

7 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to 

seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).