In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15–0007V 

Filed: August 4, 2017 

Unpublished 

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

DEBORAH VALLES, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 

 * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Mark T. Sadaka, Attorney at Law, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner. 

Christine M. Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On January 5, 2015, Deborah Valles (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq., (the 

“Vaccine Act”).2 The petition alleged that as a result of a Measles, Mumps, Rubella 

(MMR) vaccination administered on August 8, 2012, petitioner suffered “arthralgia, 

myalgia, myositis, muscle weakness, bilateral bursitis in both knees, numbness and 

tingling, and pain.” Pet. at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

(“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters. 

On February 2, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision based on the parties’ 

stipulation, awarding petitioner $20,000.00. Decision, filed Feb. 2, 2017 (ECF No. 48). 

On March 28, 2017, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs, along 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends 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). 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. 

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

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

with two exhibits in support thereof. Pet’r’s Appl. for Att’ys’ Fees and Costs 

(“Application”), filed Mar. 28, 2017 (ECF No. 51). 

Petitioner requests $23,096.09 in attorneys’ fees and $3,183.61 in costs, for a 

total award of $26,279.70.3 Id. at 1, 15-16; Ex. A (ECF No. 51-1); Ex. B (ECF No. 51-2). 

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned finds certain reductions are 

necessary, and awards petitioner a total of $23,970.09 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

I. Relevant Procedural History 

Petitioner requests $23,096.09 in attorneys’ fees (including fees for two associate 

attorneys and five paralegals) and $3,183.61 in costs. The Application provides time 

and expense sheets, in addition to a supporting statement (“Certification”) from 

petitioner’s counsel providing background information on himself and some members of 

his staff who worked on the case. Application at 3-7; Exs. A and B. 

Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s application on April 14, 2017. 

Respondent’s Response (“Resp’t’s Resp.”), filed Apr. 14, 2017 (ECF No. 52). 

Respondent did not object to the overall amount sought, but noted that his lack of 

objection “should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly 

rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.” Id. at 

1. 

Petitioner filed a reply on April 14, 2017, requesting this Court “grant her motion 

for the aforementioned fees and costs.” Petitioner’s Reply (“Pet’r’s Reply”), filed Apr. 

14, 2017 (ECF No. 53) at 1. 

II. Discussion 

Pursuant to the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). Petitioner in this case was awarded compensation, and she is 

entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.4

a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees 

The Federal Circuit endorses the lodestar approach to determine reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 

1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under the lodestar approach, a court makes “an initial estimate 

 

3 Petitioner requested $26,279.69 in fees and costs. Application at 1; Ex. A at 16. However, $23,096.09 

(requested total fees) + $3,183.61 (requested total costs) = $26,279.70. 

4 Additionally, § 300aa-15(e)(3) states that “[n]o attorney may charge any fee for services in connection 

with a petition filed under section 300aa-11 of this title which is in addition to any amount awarded as 

compensation by the special master or court under paragraph (1).” This would include any amounts 

requested by counsel that the undersigned finds non-compensable. 
3

of a reasonable attorneys’ fee 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)). After this initial calculation, the court “may then 

make an upward or downward departure to the fee award based on other specific 

findings.” Id. at 1348. 

The reasonableness standard applies both to attorneys’ fees and costs. Savin v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 315 (2008). The application must 

provide sufficient detail and explanation of the time billed so that a special master may 

adjudge the reasonableness of the amount requested. Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760 (1989); Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468 at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009). It is the 

petitioner who bears the burden of adequately documenting the fees and costs. 

Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468 at *8. 

Special masters need not conduct a line-by-line evaluation of a petitioner’s fee 

application to determine a reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Sevs., 24 Cl.Ct. 482, 484, aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 

1993); Nelson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-70V, 2015 WL 9302973 at *2 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2015) (“It is within the special master’s discretion to 

reduce the number of hours by a percentage of the amount charged, rather than making 

a line-by-line determination regarding the reasonableness of the charges”). Special 

masters have discretion to discern whether any of the requested hours are “excessive, 

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 

F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In 

contemplating reductions, special masters have the latitude to “consider their prior 

experience in reviewing fee applications and even dealings with the specific attorney 

involved.” Savin, 85 Fed. Cl. at 315. It is further within the purview of special masters 

to reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from or in the absence of respondent’s 

objections, and without providing petitioner notice or opportunity to respond. Sabella v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009); Estate of Bondi by 

Shoemaker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-476V, 2017 WL 1046526 at *2 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2017). 

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates 

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates: 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Attorneys 

Mark Sadaka 337.05 337.05 350 350 362.95 376.38 

Anna Sweeney 192.60 200 200 207.40 215.07 223.03 

Andrew Pinon 200 207.40 215.07 223.03 

Paralegals 

Ailona Parker 130.01 135 135 140 145.17 

Bria Wilson 130.01 135 135 140 145.17 

Keri Congiusti 130.01 130.01 135 135 140 145.17 

Latashia Vauss 130.01 135 135 140 145.17 

Melina Fotiou 130.01 135 135 140 145.17 
4

 

Petitioner’s application includes requested rates for years in which certain staff 

members did not bill time in this case.5 Application at 1-2. The undersigned will only 

address requested rates for staff members in the years in which they billed time. 

The rates requested for Mr. Sadaka and Mr. Pinon have been evaluated and 

awarded to them in other Vaccine Act cases. See, e.g., Siciliano v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 15–253V, 2017 WL 1174449 at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 21, 

2017); Jones v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12–875V, 2017 WL 2061471 at *3 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2017). The undersigned finds these rates reasonable and 

awards them herein. 

After consideration, the undersigned finds it necessary to adjust the rate 

requested for Ms. Sweeney in 2012. The 2012 rate for Ms. Sweeney is reduced from 

$192.60 to $185.47. Ms. Sweeney was admitted to practice in New Jersey in 2012. 

Application at 6. The undersigned finds this reduced rate appropriate based on Ms. 

Sweeney’s experience in 2012, and this rate is consistent with that awarded to her in 

Jones for 2012. See Jones, 2017 WL 2061471 at *3. 

Petitioner requests reimbursement for time billed by five paralegals.6 Petitioner’s 

requested rates for three of the paralegals have previously been awarded.7 The 

undersigned finds these rates reasonable, and awards them herein. However, the rate 

requested for Ms. Congiusti in 2012 is too high, and is adjusted to align with the rate 

awarded to her in Jones.

8 Additionally, the rate requested for Ms. Parker and in 2016 

and 2017 is too high based on her experience, and the undersigned adjusts it to align 

with the rate awarded to her in Jones, Siciliano, and Willett.

9 

 

5 For example, petitioner requests hourly rates for Ailona Parker from 2013-2017. Application at 1. 

However, Ms. Parker only billed time in 2016 and 2017. Ex. A at 1-15. 

6 Petitioner requests reimbursement for time billed by Ailona Parker, Bria Wilson, Keri Congiusti, Latashia 

Vauss, and Melina Fotiou. 

7 These paralegals are Bria Wilson, Latashia Vauss, and Melina Fotiou. Siciliano, 2017 WL 1174449 at 

*2; see Willett v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 15–252V, 2017 WL 3298983 at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. June 2, 2017). 

8 The rate for Keri Congiusti is reduced from $130.01 to $125.19 for 2012. See Jones, 2017 WL 2061471 

at *3. 

9 The rate requested for Ailona Parker is reduced from $140 to $135 for 2016. See Jones, 2017 WL 

2061471 at *3 (Special Master Roth awarded $134.81, but the undersigned rounds to the nearest dollar); 

Siciliano, 2017 WL 1174449 at *2-3 (Special Master Gowen awarded $134.81, but the undersigned 

rounds to the nearest dollar); Willett, 2017 WL 3298983 at *3 n. 6 (awarding Ms. Parker $135 per hour for 

time billed in 2016). The undersigned finds a rate of $140 per hour for 2017 to be reasonable based on 

these adjusted rates and Ms. Parker’s experience. 
5

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following hourly rates: 

ii. Reduction of Billable Hours 

1. Excessive and Duplicative Billing 

The undersigned has previously found it appropriate to reduce fees that are 

excessive or duplicative. J.W. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-551V, 2017 

WL 877278 at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 10, 2017) (reducing attorneys’ and law 

students’ overall fees by 20 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Davis v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-159V, 2017 WL 877277 at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Feb. 7, 2017) (reducing attorneys’ fees and law students’ fees by 20 percent due 

to excessive and duplicative billing). As many of petitioner’s billing entries are 

excessive and one is duplicative, the undersigned finds cause to reduce the fee 

request. 

Most significantly, petitioner’s billing records contain over 80 entries amounting to 

nearly 38 hours and approximately $5,470.53 in requested fees for time spent 

requesting, receiving, and reviewing medical records, and communicating with and 

researching medical providers.10 The undersigned finds this to be a strikingly excessive 

amount of time spent managing the approximately 160 pages of medical records filed in 

this case. The undersigned finds cause to reduce petitioner’s fee award for these 

entries. 

Petitioner’s billing records also contain a duplicative entry. On September 27, 

2016, Mr. Sadaka billed 0.7 hours for, inter alia, “plan and prepare for status 

 

10 Based on the undersigned’s review and calculations, Keri Congiusti billed approximately 28.8 hours 

related to medical records (e.g., “Communicate with medical provider re: record request; draft notes to 

file”; “Receipt/review of medical record; update file”; “Review/analyze medical records”); Anna Sweeney 

billed approximately 4.7 hours (e.g., “Review/analyze client provided medical records; update SOL memo 

and chronology”; “Review/analyze medical records”; “Communicate with client re medical records; draft 

notes to file. Review/analyze client provided medical records”); Bria Wilson billed approximately 3.9 hours 

(e.g., “Communicate with medical provider re: record request; draft notes to file”; “Draft/revise medical 

record request; prepare authorization”; “Research medical provider”); Ailona Parker billed approximately 

0.2 hours (e.g., “Draft/revise correspondence to medical provider re: medical record payment); and 

Latashia Vauss billed approximately 0.1 hours (e.g., “Receipt/review correspondence from medical 

provider re: invoice; update file”). This totals approximately $5,470.53. 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Attorneys 

Mark Sadaka 337.05 337.05 350 350 362.95 376.38 

Anna Sweeney 185.47 200 207.40 

Andrew Pinon 215.07 

Paralegals 

Ailona Parker 135 140 

Bria Wilson 135 140 

Keri Congiusti 125.19 130.01 135 135 140 

Latashia Vauss 140 

Melina Fotiou 140 145.17 
6

conference; appear for/attend status conference.” Ex. A at 13. Mr. Sadaka billed an 

additional 0.9 hours on September 27, 2016 for “[p]lan/prepare for status conference. 

Appear for/attend status conference; draft/revise notes to file.” Ex. A at 14. Because 

petitioner may not submit duplicative charges, the undersigned finds cause to reduce 

petitioner’s 0.7 hour entry for $254.07. 

2. Administrative Time 

The Vaccine Program does not permit billing for clerical, administrative, or 

secretarial work. Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (finding that 

services of a secretarial or clerical nature “should be considered as normal overhead 

office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates”); J.W., 2017 WL 877278 at *3 (“It is 

well established that billing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the 

Vaccine Program”). 

Petitioner’s counsel billed approximately 1.3 paralegal hours for mailing.11 These 

entries, which the undersigned characterizes as administrative work, do not constitute 

billable time. Guerrero v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 124 Fed. Cl. 153, 156 

(2015) (noting that “purely clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal 

rate, regardless of who performs them”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The 

undersigned therefore reduces the fee request. 

3. Vague Entries 

As noted above, a petitioner’s application for fees and costs must sufficiently 

detail the time billed so as to enable the special master to determine the 

reasonableness of the amount requested. Bell, 18 Cl. Ct. at 760; Rodriguez, 2009 WL 

2568468 at *8. The undersigned has previously found it reasonable to reduce 

attorneys’ fees for vagueness, and finds it necessary to do so herein. Estate of Bondi, 

2017 WL 1046526 at *3 (reducing a fee award for vagueness when petitioner’s billing 

entries “did not include sufficient detail about what tasks were being performed and 

why”); Davis, 2017 WL 877277 at *4 (reducing petitioner’s fee award for vagueness). 

The undersigned finds numerous vague billing entries made in this case. 

Petitioner billed approximately 6.4 hours of attorney and paralegal time over 20 

separate entries to perform case review (occasionally referred to as “Review/analyze 

case file”) and draft/revise directives. These activities alone result in over $2,100.00 in 

fees. Ex. A at 1-15. Counsel’s vague descriptions do not provide the undersigned 

sufficient means to effectively evaluate the reasonableness of the time spent and work 

performed, and the undersigned thus finds cause to reduce petitioner’s fee award. 

For all the reasons stated above, the undersigned reduces petitioner’s entire fee 

award by 10 percent. See Estate of Bondi, 2017 WL 1046526 at *4 (reducing 

petitioner’s fee award by 10 percent); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

 

11 Keri Congiusti billed 0.3 hours for “Plan/prepare mailing to client re: petition” and 0.2 hours for 

“Plan/prepare mailing to client re: filed affidavit.” Bria Wilson billed 0.7 hours for, inter alia, “Plan/prepare 

mailing of damages form to client.” Melina Fotiou billed 0.1 hours for “plan/prepare mailing of stipulation.” 
7

11–654V, 2016 WL 7212323 at *18 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 2, 2016) (reducing 

petitioner’s fee award by 20 percent); Nelson, 2015 WL 9302973 at *2 (“It is within the 

special master’s discretion to reduce the number of hours by a percentage of the 

amount charged, rather than making a line-by-line determination regarding the 

reasonableness of the charges”). This adjustment reduces petitioner’s fee award by 

$2,309.61. 

b. Costs 

Petitioner requests reimbursement for attorney costs in the amount of $3,183.61. 

After reviewing petitioner’s invoices, the undersigned finds no cause to reduce 

petitioner’s request and awards the full amount sought. 

III. Conclusion 

The undersigned awards petitioner the following for attorneys’ fees and costs: 

Requested attorneys’ fees: $23,096.09

Reductions - 2,309.61

Adjusted Fees Total: $20,786.48

Requested attorneys’ costs: $3,183.61

Reductions - 0.00

Adjusted Costs Total: + $3,183.61

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded: $23,970.09

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a total of $23,970.09,12 representing 

reimbursement for all attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check jointly 

payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mark T. Sadaka. 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 

12 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). 

13 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. 
8

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master