In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: January 24, 2020

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

CHARLES HUGGINS, *

*

Petitioner, * No. 17-467V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On March 31, 2017, Charles Huggins (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 

(2012). Petitioner alleged that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of 

receiving an influenza vaccination on October 14, 2014. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 8, 

2019, the parties filed a proffer, which the undersigned adopted as her Decision awarding 

compensation on August 12, 2019. Decision, ECF No. 58.

On October 1, 2019, Petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF 

No. 62 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of 

$41,992.59, representing $38,797.70 in attorneys’ fees and $3,194.89 in attorneys’ costs. Fees 

App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that he has not incurred any costs 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. 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. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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).

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

related to this litigation. ECF No. 64. Respondent responded to the motion on October 10, 2019, 

stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs are met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned “exercise her discretion and 

determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2-3, ECF No. 63. 

Petitioner filed a reply on October 10, 2019, reiterating his belief that the requested amount of fees 

and costs was reasonable. ECF No. 65.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the Special Master to award “reasonable 

attorneys' fees, and other costs.” § 300aa–15(e)(1)(A)–(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, 

even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible so long as the Special Master finds that the petition 

was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation, he is 

entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

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 v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). 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. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for his attorneys: for Ms. Alison 

Haskins, $387.00 per hour for work performed in 2019; for Mr. F. John Caldwell, $356.00 per 

hour for work performed in 2016, $367.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, and $385.00 per 

hour for work performed in 2018; and for Mr. Altom Maglio, $400.00 per hour for work performed 

in 2019. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 27. These rates are all consistent with what these individuals have 

previously been awarded for Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be 

reasonable for the instant case as well. Accordingly, the requested hourly rates are reasonable and 

no reductions are necessary.

b. Reasonable Hours Expended
3

Attorneys' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are 

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well-established that billing for 

administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States, 

18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-1616V, 2018 WL 

2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has 

provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and, upon review, the 

undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Respondent also did not 

indicate that he finds any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is 

entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $38,797.70.

c. Attorneys’ Costs

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

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

a total of $3,194.89 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, 

the Court’s filing fee, postage, and subpoena services. All of these costs are typical of Vaccine 

Program litigation and are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience and Petitioner has provided 

adequate documentation supporting the request. Accordingly, the requested attorneys’ costs are 

reasonable and shall be reimbursed in full.

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned has 

reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and 

costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to 

compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $38,797.70

(Reduction to Fees) -

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $38,797.70

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $3,194.89

(Reduction to Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $3,194.89

Total Amount Awarded $41,992.59

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

1) a lump sum in the amount of $41,992.59, representing reimbursement for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and 

Petitioner’s counsel of record, Ms. Alison Haskins.
4

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.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Katherine E. Oler

 Katherine E. Oler

Special Master

 

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

Vaccine Rule 11(a).