ZAMORA v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedApril 4, 2025
Docket19-1718V
StatusUnpublished

This text of ZAMORA v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (ZAMORA 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.

Bluebook
ZAMORA v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, (uscfc 2025).

Opinion

CORRECTED

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (Filed: February 25, 2025)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * URIEL ZAMORA, as father and natural * natural guardian of minor, A.Z., and * EDNA FRIAS, as mother and * natural guardian of minor, A.Z., * * No. 19-1718V Petitioners, * * Special Master Dorsey v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioners. James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On November 6, 2019, Uriel Zamora and Edna Frias (“petitioners”), father and mother and natural guardians of their minor child, A.Z., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018).2 Petitioners alleged that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 30, 2016, and the hepatitis A vaccine on December 14, 2016, A.Z. developed ataxia and opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome (“OMS”), also known as opsoclonus myoclonus ataxia (“OMA”). Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). On February 20, 2024, the parties

1 Because 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. filed a proffer, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on February 21, 2024. (ECF No. 110).

On August 16, 2024, Petitioners filed a final motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 115). Petitioners request compensation in the amount of $154,417.55, representing $125,092.90 in attorneys’ fees and $29,324.65 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. at 29-30. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioners warrant that they did not personally incur any expenses associated with the claim. Fees App. at 1. Respondent filed his response on August 26, 2024, indicating that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2. (ECF No. 120). Petitioners did not file a reply thereafter.

The matter is now ripe for disposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and awards a total of $154,417.55.

I. Discussion

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. at §15(e)(1). In this case, because petitioners were awarded compensation pursuant to a proffer, they are entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at 1348.

Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the 2 special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009).

A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of a petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991) rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant part, 988 F. 2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests … [v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee application.” Saxton, 3 F. 3d at 1521.

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioners request a total of $125,092.90 in attorneys’ fees. Petitioners requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Jeffrey Pop, $420.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $453.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $470.00 per hour for work performed in 2020 and 2021, $520.00 per hour for work performed in 2022 and 2023, and $575.00 per hour for work performed in 2024; for Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Avera v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
515 F.3d 1343 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Fox v. Vice
131 S. Ct. 2205 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Savin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Federal Claims, 2008)
Broekelschen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Federal Claims, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ZAMORA v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zamora-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2025.