Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-117V
ABBY RODRIGUEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 18, 2025 v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Julianna Rose Kober, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On January 6, 2021, Abby Rodriguez filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine she received on December 3, 2018. Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 15, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 55.
1Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $45,286.12 (representing $44,120.80 in fees plus $1,165.32 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed November 10, 2025, ECF No. 59. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 59-4 at 1.
Respondent reacted to the motion on November 13, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response at 2, 4. ECF No. 60. Also, on November 13, 2025, Petitioner indicated that she does not intend to file a substantive reply. ECF No. 61.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be awarded herein. And all time billed to the matter was reasonably incurred.
Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 59-3 at 1-52. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $45,286.12 (representing $44,120.80 in fees plus $1,165.32 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2026.