In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-640V

(Not to be published)

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

ADAM CRISPO, *

* Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, * 

* Dated: January 11, 2021

v. * 

* Attorney’s Fees and Costs.

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Bruce W. Slane, Law Offices of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.

James V. Lopez, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION GRANTING FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On June 4, 2018, Adam Crispo filed a petition seeking compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).

2 Petitioner alleged that he suffered 

a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving the 

meningococcal vaccine on January 20, 2017. Petition (“Pet.”) (ECF No. 1) at 1. A one-day fact 

hearing in the matter was held on January 17, 2020, to address both onset and situs of vaccination 

issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made two factual findings necessary, but insufficient, to 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This 

means that the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. 

Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any 

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged 

or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. 

Id.

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) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the 

Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).
2

make an entitlement ruling in Petitioner’s favor. See Order at 1–2, filed Jan. 21, 2020 (ECF No. 

36). Thereafter I encouraged the parties to settle the case, and their efforts were successful. On 

June 24, 2020, Respondent proffered an amount of damages, which I approved in my Decision 

awarding damages on June 26, 2020. Decision, dated June 26, 2020 (ECF No. 48). This 

determination was not appealed.

Petitioner has now filed a motion for a final award of attorney’s fees and costs for all work 

performed in this matter. Motion, filed Nov. 17, 2020 (ECF No. 54) (“Mot.”). Petitioner requests 

a final award of $24,090.09—$22,410.00 in attorney’s fees3 plus $1,680.09 in costs—for the work 

of four attorneys (Mr. Bruce Slane, Esq., Ms. AnnMarie Sayad, Esq., Mr. Christian Martinez, Esq., 

and Mr. Nathan Pereira, Esq.), in addition to the supportive work of several paralegals. Tab A to 

Mot., filed on Nov. 17, 2020 (ECF No. 54-1). The costs requested include expenses associated 

with medical record retrieval, travel expenses, and court filings. Id. at 27–28; Tab B to Mot., filed 

on Nov. 17, 2020 (ECF No. 54-2). Respondent reacted to the fees request on November 17, 2020. 

See Response, dated Nov. 17, 2020 (ECF No. 55). Respondent is satisfied that the statutory 

requirements for an attorney’s fees and costs award are met in this case, and otherwise defers 

calculation of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Id. at 2–3. 

For the reasons below, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s motion, awarding fees and costs in 

the total amount of $24,090.09.

ANALYSIS

I. Reasonable Attorney’s Fees

Under the Vaccine Act, successful petitioners are entitled to an award of reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs. Section 15(e)(1). Thus, the only question posed herein is the calculation 

of the award to be made.

Determining the appropriate amount of the fees 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 & Hum. Servs., 

515 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). 

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

consideration. Id. at 1348. This standard for calculating a fee award is considered applicable in 

most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 

429–37 (1983). 

3 Petitioner’s motion requests $22,410.50, but the submitted billing invoice (Tab A) indicates that the total amount 

billed was $22,410.00, and Petitioner’s counsel has confirmed the lesser sum (by fifty cents) to be accurate.
3

An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the 

proper hourly rate on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C., for Vaccine 

Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there is a 

substantial difference in rates (the Davis exception). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 (citing Davis Cty. 

Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 

755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges for attorneys with 

different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine Program. See

McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

Petitioner requests the following rates for his attorney and support staff, based on the years 

work was performed:

2017 2018 2019 2020

Mr. Bruce Slane (Attorney) $335 $345 $355 $365

Ms. AnnMarie Sayad (Attorney) $225 - - -

Mr. Christian Martinez (Attorney

Work) - $200 $215 $225

Mr. Christian Martinez (Paralegal 

Work) - $148 $153 $163

Mr. Nathan Pereira (Attorney) - $300 - -

Ms. Donna Connell (Paralegal) $140 $145 $148 $151

Mr. Paul Segal (Paralegal) $140 $145 $148 $151

Ms. Hannah O’Reilly (Paralegal) $140 $145 $148 $151

Ms. Veronika Tadros (Paralegal) - $140 - -

Mr. Slane and his associates (who practice in White Plains, New York) have repeatedly 

been found to be “in forum,” and are therefore entitled to the rates established in McCulloch. The 

rates requested for Mr. Slane and his associates (as well as the paralegal work performed in this 

case) are also consistent with what they have previously been awarded in accordance with the 

Office of Special Masters’ fee schedule.

4

. See Bender v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-

693V, 2019 WL 2142616, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 15, 2019). I find no cause to reduce 

them in this instance. I also deem the time devoted to the matter reasonable, and therefore award 

fees for all work performed on the case as requested in the fees application. 

II. Calculation of Attorney’s Costs 

Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must 

4 OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914 (last visited Jan. 5, 

2021).
4

also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Presault v. United States, 52 Fed. 

Cl. 667, 670 (2002); Perreira v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992).

Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while 

working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at 

*16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). When petitioners fail to substantiate a cost item, such as 

by not providing appropriate documentation to explain the basis for a particular cost, special 

masters have refrained from paying the cost at issue. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).

Petitioner seeks $1,680.09 in costs, including the expenses of medical record retrieval,

travel expenses, and filing fees. See Tab A at 27–29; Tab B. Such expenses are typically incurred 

in the Vaccine Program, and I do not find any of the requested costs in this matter unreasonable. 

Thus, they shall be awarded in full without reduction. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining the propriety 

of a final fees award, and based on the foregoing, I GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s 

Fees and Costs. I therefore award a total of $24,090.09, reflecting $22,410.00 in attorney’s fees 

and $1,680.09 in costs, in the form of a check made jointly payable to Petitioner and his attorney 

Mr. Bruce Slane. 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this decision.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices 

renouncing their right to seek review.