In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1879V

(not to be published)

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

ANDREW SANCHEZ-ALDANA and *

KARINA SANCHEZ-ALDANA, *

on behalf of V.S.A., a minor, *

* Special Master Corcoran

*

Petitioners, * Filed: July 31, 2019

*

v. *

* Attorney’s Fees and Costs.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

*

Respondent. *

*

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

John R. Howie, Jr., Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Althea W. Davis, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION GRANTING FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On December 5, 2017, Andrew and Karina Sanchez-Aldana filed a petition on behalf of 

their minor child, V.S.A., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioners alleged that V.S.A. suffered from intussusception as a 

result of receiving the rotavirus vaccine on December 5, 2014. The parties filed a stipulation for 

award on April 5, 2019, which I adopted as my Decision awarding damages on the same day. (ECF 

No. 23).

 

1 Although I have not designated this Decision for publication, it will be made available 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will 

redact such material from the public Decision. 

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 
2

Petitioners have now filed a motion requesting final attorney’s fees and costs, dated April 

25, 2019 (ECF No. 27) (“Fees App.”), requesting a total award of $19,672.51 (representing 

$19,175.70 in fees, plus $496.81 in costs). Fees App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, 

Petitioners warrant that they have not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of this litigation.

Fees App. Ex. 4 at 1. Respondent reacted to the motion on May 9, 2019, indicating that he is 

satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this 

case, and deferring to my discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. Response, ECF No. 

29, at 2-3. Petitioners filed a reply on May 9, 2019, stating that “a review of Respondent’s 

Response reflects that Respondent has made no specific objection to Petitioners’ Application; 

therefore, Petitioners do not intend to file a substantive reply to Respondent’s response.” Reply, 

ECF No. 30, at 1.

For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s motion in part, awarding 

final attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $19,471.71.

ANALYSIS

Vaccine Program attorneys are entitled to a fees award in successful cases like this one. 

Determining the appropriate amount of that award is a two-part process. The first part involves 

application of the lodestar method – “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 

1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)).3 The second 

part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down to take relevant factors into 

consideration. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. This standard for calculating a fee award is considered 

 

3 An attorney's reasonable hourly rate is more precisely understood to be the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant 

forum. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349; Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468, at 

*2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009), mot. for rev. denied, 91 Fed. Cl. 453 (2010), aff'd, 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). That rate is in turn determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the award rate on rates paid to similarly 

qualified attorneys in the forum where the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C., for Vaccine Program cases). Avera, 

515 F.3d at 1348. After the hourly rate is determined, the reasonableness of the total hours expended must be 

considered. Sabella, 86 Fed. Cl. at 205-06. This reasonableness inquiry involves consideration of the work performed 

on the matter, the skill and experience of the attorneys involved, and whether any waste or duplication of effort is 

evident. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 437.

In some cases, determining the proper hourly rate for a particular attorney requires consideration of whether there is 

a significant disparity between the forum rate applicable to the Vaccine Program generally and the geographic forum 

in which the attorney practices, in order to adjust the rate used for the lodestar calculation. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349, 

(citing Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 

1999) ).
3

applicable in most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 

461 U.S. 424, 429-37 (1983).

Petitioners request the following rates of compensation for their attorney, Mr. John Howie: 

$363.00 per hour for work performed in2017, $383.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, and 

$395.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. Fees App. at 1. Petitioners also request rates ranging 

from $50 per hour to $148.00 per hour for paralegal work, depending on the individual paralegal 

and the year the work was performed. Id. at 1-2. I find the rates requested to be consistent with 

what Mr. Howie has previously been awarded for his Vaccine Program work, and also consistent 

with the Office of Special Masters’ fee schedules.4

I have reviewed the billing entries and find them to be largely reasonable. The only 

reduction necessary is for time billed by Debbie Lupo, one of Mr. Howie’s paralegals. Ms Lupo 

consistently billed 0.3 hours for review of mundane court filings, such as scheduling orders, the 

notice of assignment, and notice of appearance by Respondent’s counsel. Fees App. Ex. 2 at 8. In 

my experience, this is an excessive amount of for review of these such filings. By comparison, one 

of Mr. Howie’s other paralegals only billed 0.1 hours for review of a scheduling order, a more 

reasonable amount of time for this task. Id. at 9. I will therefore reduce Ms. Lupo’s 2017 hours 

billed by 0.8 and her 2018 hours billed by 0.6, resulting in a reduction of $200.80.

5 Petitioners are 

thus awarded final attorney’s fees of $18,974.90.

I will next turn to costs. Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of 

requested fees, petitioners must also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. 

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

States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667, 670 (Fed. Cl. 2002). Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining 

medical records and expert time incurred while working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at *16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). 

When petitioners fail to carry their burden, such as by not providing appropriate documentation to 

substantiate a requested cost, special masters have refrained from awarding compensation. See, 

 

4 The 2015–2016 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/AttorneysForum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2015-2016.pdf. The 2017 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2017.pdf. The 2018 Fee 

Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20Schedule%202018.p

df. The 2019 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20Schedule%202019.p

df. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

5

(0.8 hours * $140.00) + (0.6 hours * $148.00) = $200.80.
4

e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).

Petitioners request $496.81 in overall costs. Fees. App. at 1. This amount is comprised of 

obtaining medical records, postage charges, and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed all of the 

requested costs and find them to be reasonable, and Petitioners have provided adequate 

documentation supporting them. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to the full amount of costs 

requested.

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-15(e). Accordingly, I award a total of $19,471.71 as a lump sum in the form of a check 

jointly payable to Petitioners and their counsel, Mr. John Howie, Jr., Esq. In the absence of a 

timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter 

judgment in accordance with this decision.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Special Master

 

6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their 

right to seek review.