In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

Filed: May 19, 2017 

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

JENELLE ESCALERA and ARTURO * 

ESCALERA, on behalf of their minor * 

child A.E., * No. 14-431V 

 * 

Petitioners, * Special Master Sanders 

 * 

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Unopposed; Reasonable Amount 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Requested. 

 * 

Respondent. * 

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

Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner. 

Christine M. Becer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

 On May 20, 2014, Jenelle and Arturo Escalera (“Petitioners”) filed a petition on behalf of 

their daughter, A.E., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). Petitioners alleged that the diphtheria-tetanus-acellularpertussis (“DTaP”) and haemophilus type B (“HiB”) vaccines administered on May 20, 2011 

caused A.E. to suffer from celiac disease. Ruling Ent. 1, ECF No. 42. On November 23, 2016, 

Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman issued a ruling finding that Petitioners were entitled to 

compensation. Id. On May 2, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation 

to Petitioners pursuant to Respondent’s damages proffer. Decision Proffer, ECF No. 54 

 

1 This decision shall be posted 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that 

satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a 

motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such 

material will be deleted from public access. 

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. 

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012) 

[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
2

On May 18, 2017, Petitioners filed an Unopposed Motion for Final Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs. Mot. Att’ys’ Fees, ECF No. 56. Petitioners requested attorneys’ fees and costs in the 

amount of $40,000.00. Id. at 1. Respondent indicated that he “does not object to the overall 

amount sought,” but also noted that the “lack of objection should not be construed as an 

admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or 

the other litigation related costs.” Id. at 1-2. 

The undersigned has reviewed Petitioners’ counsel’s detailed records of time and 

expenses incurred in this case, and they are reasonable. In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned finds that Petitioners are entitled to attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $40,000.00,3in the 

form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioners and Petitioners’ counsel, Andrew D. 

Downing, of Van Cott and Talamante, PLLC. 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.4

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Herbrina D. Sanders 

 Herbrina D. Sanders 

 Special Master 

 

3 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). 

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to 

seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).