Dejesus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 14-1238

Petitioner Raul DeJesus alleged a SIRVA (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration) from an influenza vaccine and filed for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The parties disputed onset of shoulder pain; a hearing in Philadelphia elicited percipient witness testimony and the special master found the petitioner's onset date.
After onset was resolved, the parties stipulated to compensation and a decision awarding recovery was entered on October 27, 2016.
Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs: requested $34,277.00 in fees and $692.91 in costs (total $34,969.91). Respondent asked the special master to exercise discretion in determining a reasonable award.
The special master applied the lodestar method (reasonable hours × reasonable rates), accepted previously approved hourly rates for counsel ( $255/hr pre-June 1, 2016; $275/hr after) and paralegal ($125/hr), but found some entries redundant or vague.
To achieve "rough justice," the special master reduced the requested attorneys’ fees by 15% for vague/duplicative billing and awarded the full requested costs, resulting in a total award of $29,828.36.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs	DeJesus sought reasonable fees and costs incurred in pursuing his Vaccine Act claim	Respondent did not contest entitlement but asked the special master to exercise discretion in amount	Entitlement established; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs awarded under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(e)
Reasonableness of hourly rates	Counsel sought previously-approved rates: $255/hr (pre-June 1, 2016) and $275/hr (post) and $125/hr for paralegal	Respondent did not specifically challenge the hourly rates	Special master accepted these rates as reasonable based on prior awards
Reasonableness of billed hours / tasks billed at attorney vs paralegal rates	Counsel billed for tasks, some of which overlapped with paralegal work; billed hours presented as reasonable overall	Respondent did not specifically object to hours but asked special master to exercise discretion	Special master found most hours reasonable but noted duplication and vague entries; reduced attorneys’ fees by 15% to account for vagueness/duplicative billing
Compensable costs	Petitioner sought routine litigation costs (record retrieval, postage) totaling $692.91	Respondent did not object to the specific costs	Special master awarded the full amount of requested costs

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (formula for reasonable attorney’s fee: hours multiplied by reasonable rate)
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (hours must not be excessive, redundant, or unnecessary)
Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (requiring adequate identification of attorney activities does not typically invade attorney-client privilege)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (supports percentage reductions to achieve "rough justice" in fee awards)