MENDOZA v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1318V
PABLO MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 8, 2025
Gil L. Daley, II, Law Office of Gil L. Daley, II, P.C., Fort Worth, TX, for Petitioner.
James Connor Daughton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On August 15, 2023, Pablo Mendoza 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration 	following an influenza vaccination he received on September 3, 2020.
Petition, ECF No. 1. On September 10, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation
to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 81.
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
inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).
Case 1:23-vv-01318-UNJ Document 95 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $58,833.35 (representing $55,851.60 in fees plus $2,981.75 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed October 15, 2025, ECF No. 88. Furthermore,
Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that no personal out-of-pocket expenses
were incurred. ECF No. 83.
Respondent 	reacted to the motion on October 21, 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. Motion
at 2-5, ECF No. 89. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The hourly
rates requested herein are reasonable and consistent with prior determinations and shall
therefore be awarded. However, I find a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be
awarded appropriate, for the reasons stated below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). 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 & 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 & 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 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 petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing 	the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl.
Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees
and costs sought] 	at the time of the submission.” 	Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1.
Case 1:23-vv-01318-UNJ Document 95 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours
that are excessive, redundant, 	or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
I have identified several instances in which tasks considered paralegal in nature were
improperly billed at the attorney’s rate.3 Counsel should note for future reference that,
“[t]asks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at
an attorney’s rate.” See Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009
WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). Turpin v. Sec’y of Health &
Human. Servs., No. 99-535, 2008 WL 5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23,
2008). And “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately
performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” 	Doe/11 v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010).
Although these billing entries reflect reasonably performed work, they must be
charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. Accordingly, I hereby apply
the reduced 	rate 	of $186.00, 	only 	for those 	tasks considered 	paralegal 	in nature.
Application 	of the 	foregoing 	reduces 	the 	amount 	of 	fees 	to be 	awarded by
$1,855.70.4
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner requests $2,981.75 in costs. ECF No. 88 at 17-37. Such costs reflect the
expenses of obtaining medical records, postage costs, and the Court’s filing fee. I find the
majority of the requested costs reasonable, except for $298.12 in claimed costs that have
3 The f ollowing billing entries reflect tasks considered paralegal in nature: 8/15/23: “Prepare Certificate of
Service.” 12/8/23 (three entries): “Prepare Notice of Filing Medical Records; Prepare Additional Notice of
Filing Medical Records; Prepare Petitioner’s Exhibit List.” 12/11/23 (two entries): “Prepare Notice of Filing
Medical Records; Prepare Petitioner’s Exhibit List.” Additional entries ref lecting the same tasks are dated
as f ollows: 12/13/23 (three entries); 12/19/23 (two entries); 1/17/24 (two entries); 1/23/24 (two entries);
1/30/24 (two entries); 2/12/24 (two entries); 7/1/24 (two entries); 8/5/24 (three entries); 8/15/24 (three
entries); 9/19/24 (two entries); 9/20/24 (f our entries); 10/28/24 (three entries); 3/14/25 (three entries);
9/2/25; 9/11/25. See ECF No. 88 at 3-16, f or a combined total of 7.70 hours of paralegal work billed by
attorney Daley.
4 This calculated as f ollows: ($427.00 - $186.00 = $241.00 x 7.70 hours) = $1,855.70.
Case 1:23-vv-01318-UNJ Document 95 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
not been substantiated 	with the required supporting documentation, such as an invoice
or proof of payment. See ECF No. 88 at 17-37. 	Before reimbursement of costs will be
made, 	sufficient 	supporting 	documentation 	such 	as 	invoices, 	receipts, 	and 	billing
statements must be provided. See Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program at 74 (emphasis added).5
When Petitioners 	fail to provide 	appropriate 	documentation 	to substantiate 	a
requested cost, Special Masters have refrained from awarding the relevant sum. See,
e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520,
at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005). Accordingly, I disallow reimbursement of
unsubstantiated 	costs claimed herein. Application of the foregoing reduces the total
amount of litigation costs to be awarded by $298.12.
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s
Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs
in the total amount of $56,679.53 (representing $53,995.90 in fees plus $2,683.63 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.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 The guidelines f or Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program can be f ound at:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program
6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
Case 1:23-vv-01318-UNJ Document 95 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 4