Esala v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 18-1333

Petitioner David Esala filed a Vaccine Program petition on August 30, 2018, alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after a September 1, 2015 influenza vaccination.
Case was initially assigned to the Special Processing Unit (SPU) but transferred out after Respondent identified factual and legal disputes.
Petitioner died while the matter was pending; no family member or representative continued the claim, and the case was dismissed.
Counsel requested attorney’s fees and costs totaling $47,802.88 (fees $47,302.50; costs $500.38); Respondent took no position and deferred to the Special Master.
The Special Master found the claim had objective reasonable basis despite weaknesses, awarded fees and costs in part, applied a 5% reduction to fees, and granted a total award of $45,437.76 ($44,937.38 fees; $500.38 costs), payable jointly to Petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unsuccessful/dismissed Vaccine Act claim is eligible for fees	Esala sought fees, arguing the petition was brought in good faith and had reasonable basis	Respondent noted substantive weaknesses (long onset, preexisting conditions) but deferred to Special Master on award	Fees may be awarded in unsuccessful cases if brought in good faith and with reasonable basis; here reasonable basis found and fees awarded in part
Hourly rates requested by counsel	Counsel requested forum rates consistent with McCulloch schedule for Boston practitioners	Respondent did not oppose the requested rates	Requested hourly rates were reasonable and awarded
Whether billed hours should be reduced	Counsel billed for work through administration and after Rule 4(c) Report despite case weaknesses and petitioner’s death	Respondent deferred to Special Master discretion on amount	Special Master reduced the lodestar by a 5% across-the-board cut due to excessive time given the case’s substantive flaws
Reasonableness of litigation costs requested	Counsel sought $500.38 for records, subpoenas, mailing, filing	Respondent did not oppose costs	All requested costs were reasonable and awarded in full

Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reasonable-basis inquiry focuses on the claim and objective evidence)
Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 971 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (reasonable basis requires an objective evidentiary showing)
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reasonable basis may cease to exist as evidence develops)
Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (lodestar method for attorney-fee calculation)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (standards for calculating fee awards under lodestar approach)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (lodestar counsel fee principles)
Braun v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 144 Fed. Cl. 72 (2019) (reasonable-basis standard is lower than entitlement standard)
Chuisano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (2014) (petitioners generally meet reasonable basis by submitting evidence)
Presault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667 (2002) (petitioners must demonstrate that litigation costs are reasonable)