In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

KATHLEEN CAMPBELL, *

* No. 17-438V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: July 6, 2022

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Joseph A. Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Washington, DC, for 

Petitioner;

Darryl R. Wishard, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Pending before the Court is petitioner Kathleen Campbell’s motion for final 

attorneys’ fees and costs. She is awarded $62,236.78.

* * *

1 Because this published decision 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). This posting means the 

decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 

18(b), the parties have 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

On March 27, 2017, petitioner filed for compensation under the Nation 

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

Petitioner alleged that an influenza vaccine she received on October 7, 2015, which 

is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused 

her to suffer from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Although the 

parties engaged in protracted settlement negotiations, they were unable to resolve 

the case informally and a fact hearing was scheduled. The parties filed prehearing 

briefs on February 21, 2020 (for petitioner) and March 12, 2020 (for respondent). 

A fact hearing was held on April 16, 2020, and was followed by the undersigned’s 

June 10, 2020 ruling on the onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain. Petitioner was then 

given an opportunity to seek a medical expert report but declined. On December 

28, 2020, the undersigned issued his decision dismissing the petition for 

insufficient proof. 2020 WL 8365846.

On June 24, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs 

(“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees of $62,386.20 and attorneys’ 

costs of $1,302.65 for a total request of $63,688.85. Fees App. at 2. Pursuant to 

General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that she has personally incurred costs

totaling $47.93 related to the prosecution of his case. Id. On July 15, 2021, 

respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. Respondent argues that 

“[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for 

respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs.” Response at 1. Respondent adds, however that he “is satisfied the 

statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this 

case.” Id at 2. Additionally, he recommends “that the Court exercise its

discretion” when determining a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.

at 3. Petitioner filed a reply on July 15, 2021, reiterating her belief that the 

requested fees and costs are reasonable. Thereafter, the undersigned requested 

additional briefing from respondent concerning the reasonable basis of the case. 

Order, issued July 20, 2021. Respondent filed a response on August 2, 2021, 

indicating that he “does not contest that a reasonable basis existed for this claim” 

and that “it appears that petitioner submitted enough evidence to satisfy the 

statutory requirement for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Response at 8.

* * *

Although compensation was denied, petitioners who bring their petitions in 

good faith and who have a reasonable basis for their petitions may be awarded 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). In this case, although 

petitioner’s claim was ultimately unsuccessful the undersigned finds that good 

faith and reasonable basis existed throughout the matter. Respondent has also 
3

indicated that he is satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been 

satisfied. Respondent’s position greatly contributes to the finding of reasonable 

basis. See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008) (“[W]e rely on the 

parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral 

arbiter of matters the parties present.”) A final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs is therefore proper in this case and the remaining question is whether the 

requested fees and costs are reasonable.

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

§15(e). 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. 

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

the fee application for its reasonableness. See McIntosh v. Secʼy of Health & 

Human Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. 238 (2018)

A. Reasonable Hourly Rates

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. 

There is, however, an exception (the so-called Davis County exception) to this 

general rule when the bulk of the work is done outside the District of Columbia 

and the attorneys’ rates are substantially lower. 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)). In this case, all the attorneys’ work 

was performed in the District of Columbia. 

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for the work of her

counsel, Mr. Joseph Vuckovich: $290.00 per hour for work performed in 2017,

$300.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $315.00 per hour for work 

performed in 2019, $345.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $370.00 per 

hour for work performed in 2021. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 74. These rates are consistent 
4

with what Mr. Vuckovich has previously been awarded for his Vaccine Program 

work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein. See, e.g., Arya v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-425V, 2021 WL 5854061 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Nov. 22, 2021).

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. 

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing records and, on the 

whole, the billed hours are reasonable. Counsel has done a good job with the level 

of detail provided in his billing entries, which has allowed the undersigned to 

assess the reasonableness of the hours billed. One minor issue is that Mr.

Vuckovich and firm paralegals have occasionally billed for review of the same 

order, resulting in an excessive amount of time expended on their review, or had 

some overlap in efforts in preparing routine filings. Another issue is that Mr. 

Vuckovich charged for several hours that involved reviewing and revising the fees 

invoice. Extensive time revising a fee invoice can be prevented if the attorneys 

create accurate time entries initially. Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 99-537V, 2008 WL 2066611 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2008) (special 

master reducing attorney hours preparing an “uncomplicated” fee petition from six 

to four hours), mot. for rev. denied, 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008). Upon review, the 

undersigned shall deduct $1,500.00 from the final award of fees to offset these 

issues.

C. Costs Incurred

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), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner requests a total of 

$1,302.65 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquisition of medical 

records, postage, the Court’s filing fee, and costs associated with meeting with 

petitioner. Fees App. Ex. 2 at 1. These costs have been supported with the 

necessary documentation and all are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. 

Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of attorneys’ costs sought.
5

Additionally, pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated that 

she has personally incurred costs totaling $47.93 for postage. Fees App. Ex. 3. 

Petitioner has supported these costs and they shall be fully reimbursed.

D. Conclusion

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

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

1) a total of $62,188.85 (representing $60,886.20 in attorneys’ fees and 

$1,302.65 in attorneys’ costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check 

jointly payable to petitioner and her counsel, Mr. Joseph Vuckovich; and

2) A total of $47.93 in petitioner’s costs as a lump sum in the form of a 

check payable to petitioner.

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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a 

joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.