### DEC 1 2016 

# ' ORIGff\IAI ' 3Jn tbe Wn1teb**~tates** 

# deourr·oryeberal QI:latms OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-984V Filed: October 18, 2016 

## * * * * *

## * * **

## ** * * *

## * ** * * * * * *

## * * For Publication GAENA MARIE LANEY, 

# • • Petitioner, 

## * 

# FILED OCT 18 2016

v. 

## * * Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs; Contested; Reasonable Basis. SECRETARY OF HEALTH 

## * AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

## * * Respondent. 

# • * * * *

## * * * ** * * *

## * * ** * * *

## * * * * ** GaenaLaney, pro se, Greenbrier, TN. Adriana Teitel, UnitedStates Departmentof Justice, Washington, DC,for respondent. Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, Phoenix, AZ,former counsel forpetitioner. DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 1 Roth, Special Master: On October 14, 2014, Gaena Laney ("Ms. Laney" or "petitioner") filed a petition for compensation underthe National Vaccine Injury CompensationProgram, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l0, etseq. 2 (the "Vaccine Act" or "Program"). Petitioner alleged thaton the night that she received the tetanus toxoid vaccination she began "running a fever," and "shebegan experiencing blurred vision, and pressure and pain at the site ofthe injection."See Petition ("Pet."), ECF No. 1, at I. "She complained ofradiation to her left arm and pain in her neck, describing it as burningthat occurred constantly." Id. She also complained of"numbness and tingling" as a result ofatetanus toxoid vaccine received on January 16, 2013. Id. Petitioner further alleged that she "continues to

1Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanationfor the action inthis case, it will be posted on the United States Court ofFederal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernmentActof2002 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule l8(b), petitionerhas 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure ofwhich would constitute an unwarranted invasion ofprivacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identifiedmaterial fits within this definition, Iwill delete such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Actof 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, I00 Stat. 3755 (1986). Hereinafter, for ease ofcitation, all "§"references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).have sharp and severejaw, ear and chest pain," and that "sometimes the burning sensation travels up her face, sometimes it crawls along her scalp, and sometimes it burns her neck."Id. at 2. Petitioner's counsel moved to withdraw as counsel; he now seeks an award for interim attorney's fees and costs pursuantto Section 15(e) ofthe Vaccine Act. After careful consideration, the undersigned has determined to grant the request in part and deny the request in partfor the reasons set forth below.
I. Facts. Petitionerwas born on April 11, 1968. She was a homemaker at the time ofthe allegedly causal vaccine. Petitioner's medical history included complaints ofchestpain, mitral valve prolapse, reactive airway disease, and shortness ofbreath. Pet. Ex. 3 at 58, 64; Pet. Ex. 4 at 7; Pet. Ex. 5 at 109, 112. Petitioner has an extensive history ofallergic reactions, including butnot limitedto: hydrocodone, sulfa, penicillin, egg, latex, potassium iodide, iodine, acetaminophen, codeine, sodium iodide, and propoxyphene hcl (Darvon). Pet. Ex. 3 at 12. On January 15, 2013, petitionerwas prescribed doxycyclineto treat aninfectedpiercing. Pet. Ex. 3 at 11, 12; Pet. Ex. 5 at 130. The next day, January 16, 2013, petitionervisited her primary care physician ("PCP") at FirstCare Mission & Crossover Clinic andreceived a tetanus toxoid vaccine in her left deltoid. Pet. Ex. 3 at 12. On January 23, 2013, petitioner returned to her PCP with a "poss allergic reaction. The onsetwas 5 day(s) ago. Location is throat. No radiation. The patient describes it as pressure. It occurs daily. Status: worse. She is also experiencing

- choking/pressure

- blurredvision. Pertinent negatives include

- airway constriction

- pain

- dysphagia

- headache. Pt experiencing poss allergic reaction. Has recently taken Doxycycline & received tetnus (sic) shot, nowfeels pressure on/around throat. Pt states she is havingtrouble swallowing. Pthas dentures and states dentures are making herthroat feel worse." Pet. Ex. 3 at 10. On February 7, 2013, petitioner returned to her PCP with "allergicreaction. The onset was 3 week(s) ago. Location is neck. There is radiation to left arm. The patient describes it as burning. Itoccurs constantly. Status: no change. She is also experiencing

- burning

- numbness/tingling. Pt is still experiencing 'burning' feeling onthe L side ofher neck radiating to herleft arm which she attributesto the tetanus injection she received 3 wks ago. States another physician advised having a steroid injection or oral steroids." Pet. Ex. 3 at 7. Petitionermay or may not have had a rash onher neck; the record is unclear, as it notes "No impressive skin lesions present. Rash is described as eryth, maculopapular, red in color, neck." Id. at 8. Prednisone was prescribed. Id. at 8. On February 9, 2013, petitionerpresented to the emergency department at Washington Regional Medical Center ("WRMC") with a chiefcomplaintofhaving weakness, dizziness and lightheadedness, throat pain, swelling onthe left side, headache, and neck pain. Pet. Ex. 5 at 126. Itwas noted that she had atetanus shot 3 weeks before and was worried that her symptoms were from that. Id. She had taken prednisone the night before and believes that the prednisone aggravated her symptoms. Id. She indicatedthat she felt unsteady. Id. She noted gradual onset and worsening symptoms. Id. She noted being shaky inthe morning. Id. at 130. She was

2concerned that she was having a "possible anaphylactic reaction from tetanus shotreceived on January 16 this year or possible medical reaction to doxycycline started for prophylactic against possible infection ofpiercings."Id. A full workup was performed, and petitionerwas diagnosed with viral syndrome before being discharged home. Id. at 126-64. On February 13, 2013, petitioner returned to the emergency room at WRMC, complaining of"aching pain, L neck, Pt. reports she had tetanus reaction x 1month ago with subsequent reaction to doxycycline. Pt. came to the ER overthe weekend and was diagnosed with viral syndrome. Pt. report (sic) she has continuedneck stiffness and is extremely anxious. Pt. was given Ativan 0.5 mg for home butpatient said she began to 'see double' while on the medication and believes she should no longertake it." Pet. Ex. 5 at 92. Apparently the "Pt. left treatment area without notifying personnel and did notreturn." Id. at 92. On that same day, petitionerreturned to her PCP for hospital follow up. Petitionerwas seen at "WRMC ER for allergic rxn to prednisone. Pt states prednisone caused extreme palpitations. Pt was given IV Ativan at the hospital and states she doesn'tremember anything after med was administered. She was also DICwithrx for Ativan which she states she took Sun night and it caused her to have double vision. Pt states has had fever, chest pain, and shakiness since being DIC from hospital and still c/o radiating pain on L side." Pet. Ex. 3 at 4. "Assessment/Plan: urinary tract infection acute, prednisone adverse reaction." Id. at 5. Petitioner returned to the emergency department two days later on February 15, 2013; records state, "ptleft prior to being seen." Pet. Ex. 5 at 91. Four days after that, on February 19, 2013, petitioner again presented to her PCP, complaining ofchest pain. Pet. Ex. 3 at 40. Petitionerthen visited the emergency department onFebruary 28, 2013, complaining of intermittent palpitations, but denied chestpain. Pet. Ex. 5 at 63-64. A nurse noted, "pthad stomach virus and high fever on Monday [February 25, 2013]." 

### Id. at 69. Petitioner also complained ofshootingpains inher left arm and dizziness. Id. A full work up was performed including an EKG and metabolic panel. Petitioner was discharged without a diagnosis and told to follow up with her PCP in the morning. See generallyPet. Ex. 5 at 63-87. Petitioner did not visither PCP orthe emergency department again until June 22, 2013, when she presented to the emergency department at WRMC complaining ofchest and neck pain. See generally Pet. Ex. 5 at 9-43. A chestx-ray was performed, which was normal. Id. A comprehensive metabolic panel was performed and was also normal. Petitionerwas discharged with a diagnosis ofchest wall strain and cervical radiculopathy. 

### Id. at 16. An outpatient MRI was ordered, and petitioner was instructed to follow up with her PCP. Id. Petitionerpresentedto WRMC onJune 28, 2013 for an x-ray ofher sinuses due to a history ofmetal in her eye. The x-ray was normal. Pet. Ex. 5 at 50. An MRI without contrast of her cervical spine for neckpain was also performed. The results were normal. 

### Id. at 50-51. Petitioner returned to her PCP four days later, on July 2, 2013, complaining ofconstant pain inthe left side ofher neck thatradiated into herjaw, as well as burning and pressure. Pet. Ex. 3 at 13. She reported that the painwas a reaction to the tetanus vaccine. Id.

3Petitioner subsequently presented to MANA Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic ("FDC") for neurological workup at the request ofher PCP onJuly 17, 2013, for facial burning, neck pain, pain in limb and facial pain. Pet. Ex. 4 at 3, 12 and 13. Several tests wereperformed, including a blood draw, sedimentation rate, and C-reactiveprotein, as well as vitamin B12 and folate tests. Pet. Ex. 4 at 13. In a letterto petitioner's PCP following the July 17, 2013 visit, Dr. Kaplan ofFDC wrote that he had seen petitionerfor a neurological consultationfor a number ofsymptoms following a tetanus booster. Pet. Ex. 4 at 16-17. He noted thather chiefcomplaints included severe clenching pain in her neck area, her neck feeling swollen, burning from her cheekto her collarbone, and pain inher left upper arm. Id. She also had shootingpains in her legs. Id. Dr. Kaplan notedthat he had reviewed all tests performed so far and had never seen anything like her complaints before. Id. Dr. Kaplan ordered an MRI ofthe brain for complaints of"facial burning, left arm, severe neck spasm from tetanus shot, 01-16-13." The MRI performed onJuly 25, 2013 was unremarkable. Pet. Ex. 4 at 19. Petitionerreturned to FDC on August 8, 2013, for a "follow up ofneck pain." Pet. Ex. 4 at l0. The assessment on that date was "painin limb." Pet. Ex. 4 at 11. Petitioner again visited FDC on September 23, 2013, for follow up of"numerous neuro sx." Pet. Ex. 4 at 8. Itwas noted thatpetitioner's "(P)roblem was listed as: I. Severe clenching pain in her neck area - this is a little improved. 2. Neck feels swollen

- this continues butto a lesser degree. 3. Pain in her anteriorneck

- this continues but also to a lesser degree. 4. Pain in her left upper arm that is aching and shooting, as well as burning in her cheeks downto her collarbone. These are improved a bit. She is now reporting some random twitching in her left upper eyelid about 2times a day that lasts about a minute ortwo."Id. at 14. The assessment/plan on that date was "Pain in limb" and "Cervical pain (neck)." Id. at 9. Advil was recommended. Id.
II. Procedural History. This case was filed on October 14, 2014 and was initially assigned to now-ChiefSpecial Master Dorsey. 3 ECF No. 1, 4. Several medical records were filed the next day, October 15, 2014. Medical Records, Exhibits 1-5, ECF No. 5. A statement ofcompletionwas filed on October 17, 2014. Statement ofCompletion, ECF No. 6. An initial status conference was held on November 6, 2014, in which the special master asked the parties to consider informal settlement discussions, based upon the medical records that had beenfiled and "giventhatpetitioner's condition was improving." Scheduling Order, ECF No. 9. The parties agreed to discuss settlement, and on December 1, 2014, petitionertransmitted a demand to respondent. Joint Status Report, ECF No. 13. Discussions continued and respondent apparently requested additional

3 Special Master Dorsey was elevated to ChiefSpecial Master on September 1, 2015.

4medical records from petitioner before continuing settlement discussions. Joint Status Report, ECF No. 15. Petitioner submitted additional medical records (Pet. Ex. 8-11) onFebruary 19, 2015; April 1, 2015; April 8, 2015; andJune 18, 2015. Medical Records, ECFNos. 17, 21, 23, 26. Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report ("Rsp. Rpt.") on May 26, 2015, indicatingthat petitioner's alleged injury was not appropriate for compensation. Rsp. Rpt., ECF No. 24. ChiefSpecial Master Dorsey held a Rule 5 status conference on June 25, 2015, in which she ordered the parties to submit expertreports. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 27. Petitioner's expert report was originally due by September 23, 2015; on September21, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time ("First MFET") until October 23, 2015, to file her expertreport. First MFET, ECF No. 29. The chiefspecial master granted this motion. This case was reassigned to me on October 21, 2015. Notice ofReassignment, ECF No. 32. Petitioner subsequently filed motions for extension oftime to file her expert report on October 21, 2015; November 20, 2015; December 28, 2015; and January 19, 2016. All motions were granted. ECF Nos. 33-36. On February 17, 2016, petitioner's counsel filed an unopposed motion to withdraw as petitioner's attorney ("Motionto Withdraw"). Motionto Withdraw, ECF No. 37. This motion was granted on March 17, 2016. Order, ECF No. 38. On April 21, 2016, Mr. Downing filed a motion for leave to file for interim attorney's fees and costs. Motion for Leave, ECF No.40. This motion was granted on May 4, 2016; Mr. Downing was instructed to file his applicationfor attorney's fees and costs by no later thanMay 25, 2016. Order, ECF No. 42. On May 18, 2016, Mr. Downing filed a motionfor attorney's fees and costs electronically; as petitionerwaspro se at this point, this case had beenremoved from electronic filing and all subsequent filings were required to be in paperform. Therefore, Mr. Downing's application was struck from the docket and he was ordered to file his applicationfor attorney's fees and costs in paper form by no later than May 25, 2016. Order, ECF No. 44. Mr. Downing filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees ("Motion") onJune 8, 2016, inpaper form, requesting attorneys' fees and costs inthe amount of$22,039.85. Motion, ECF No. 45. Respondentfiled a Response ("Response") to Mr. Downing's Motion on June 27, 2016. Response, ECF No. 46. OnJuly 7, 2016, Mr. Downing filed a Reply to Response to Motion ("Reply"). Reply, ECFNo. 47. Mr. Downing filed a Supplementto the Motion for Attorney's Fees ("Supp. Motion") on August 26, 2016, requesting supplemental attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of$3,002.36. Motion 2, ECF No. 48. This matter is now ripe for decision. III. Applicable Law.
In general, the Vaccine Act permits an award ofreasonable attorneys' fees and costs. §15(e). Determining whether an application for fees is reasonable is a matter within the discretion ofthe presiding special master. See Carrington v. Sec'yof HHS, 85 Fed. Cl. 319, 322- 23 (2008). Special masters are afforded considerable discretion when consideringmotions for



### 5attorney fees. For instance, it is within a special master's discretionto reduce fees 

### sua sponte, without warningto petitioners. 

### Sabella v. Secyof HHS, 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 208-09 (Mar. 2, 2009). IV. Discussion. Petitioner's former counsel properly filed a Motionfor Interim Attorneys' Fees and Costs on June 8, 2016, requesting $21,188.50 in attorneys' fees and $851.35 in costs, for a total of $22,039.85. Motion at I. In herresponse filed on June 27, 2016, respondent objected first to reasonable basis both at the time offiling andthroughoutthe pendency ofthis case and secondto the payment ofinterim fees and costs in this case. Respondent asserted that, should the special master decide to award interim fees, an appropriate award also would fall between $4,000.00 and $6,000.00. Response at 4-11. Mr. Downing filed a Reply onJuly 7, 2016. 

### See generally Reply, ECF No. 47. Petitioner's former counsel argued thatrespondent's counsel was conflating the standard for "reasonable basis" withthe standard for "likelihood ofprevailing onthe merits;" he also provided support for his interim fee award and objected to respondent's suggested fee range. Reply at 2-8. On August 26, 2016, Mr. Downing filed a Supplemental Motionrequesting an additional $3,002.36 in attorneys' fees and costs for drafting and filing his Reply. 

### See generally Motion 2. 1. Challenges to the interim nature offees and costs. Interim fees may be paid at the discretion ofthe special master. 

### See Averav. Secyof HHS, 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Interim fees are particularly appropriate in cases where proceedings are protracted and costly experts mustbe retained.") While they are not routinely awarded, interim fees maybe awarded when petitioner's counsel withdraws from a case. 

### See, e.g, Woods v. Sec'yof HHS, I05 Fed. Cl. 148, 154 (Fed. Cl. 2012). However, "the mere fact that an attorney plans to withdraw is not necessarily ahardship that triggers an award ofinterim attorneys' fees and costs."

### McKellar v. Secy of HHS, IOI Fed. Cl. 297, 302 (2011). As chambers has had difficulty in reaching Ms. Laney in orderto schedule a status conference, I expect that counsel may have difficulties in getting Ms. Laney's cooperation nowthat he is no longerher attorney, andtherefore it is appropriate to resolve Mr. Downing's attorneys' fees and costs at this time. 2. Challenges to reasonable basis. The Vaccine Act permits an award ofreasonable attorneys' fees and costs ifthepetition was "brought in good faith andthere was a reasonable basis." 15(e)(l). Reasonable basis is typically viewed as "anobjective standard determined bythe 'totality ofthe circumstances.'" 

### Chuisano v. UnitedStates, 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 286 (2014) (citations omitted). This somewhat amorphous standard has often been defined not by what it includes, butrather by what is lacking in cases in which a reasonable basis has been found not to exist. Typically, reasonable basis is not found when "fundamental inquiries are not made." 

### DiRoma v. Secyof HHS, No. 90-3277, 1993 WL 496981, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 1993). Additionally, a case mayhave reasonable basis when filed, but may lose reasonable basis during the pendency ofthe case. 

### Perreira v. Secyof HHS, 33 F.3d 1375, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1994); 

### McNett v. Secyof HHS, No. 99-684V, 2011 WL 760314, at *6. (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2011). Furthermore, the burden

6lies with the petitionerto "affirmatively demonstrate areasonable basis."McKel/ar, IOI Fed. Cl. at 305. Some ofthe factors considered when assessing reasonable basis include: "'thefactual basis, the medical support,jurisdictionissues', andthe circumstances under which apetition is filed." Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 288 (citing Di Roma, 1993 WL 496981, at*!). Neitherthe fact thatno medical records or supportive expert opinion was filed northe fact thatthe claim was filed beyond the statute oflimitations automatically negates a finding ofreasonable basis. Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 288 (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[a] looming statute of limitations does not forever absolve a petitionerfrom his or her obligationto proceedwith a reasonable basisto support his claim, at leastnot ifthe petitionerhopes to recover any fees and costs."Id at 287 (citations omitted).
In the present case, the undersigned finds that the petitionerhad a reasonable basis for filing her claim. As the billing records demonstrate, petitioner sought representation from Mr. Downing on or about July 15, 2013, about 14 months before the petition was filed. Petitioner's counsel and his staffthen obtained, reviewed, and summarized medical records requested and received for the petitioner's medical care following the January 16, 2013 tetanus vaccine through what appearedto be her final treatment in Septemberof2013. Counsel had numerous conversations withthepetitioner, and based uponhercomplaints and the medical records received, correctly determined that there was sufficient informationto suggestthat Petitionerhad a compensable case. Therefore, I find thatpetitioner's counsel fulfilled his duty to investigate the claim and did so through extensive discussions with petitioner, along with a review ofthe medical records in his possession. More specifically, as set forth at length above inmy analysis ofthe medical records that were in the possession ofpetitioner's attorney at the time the Petitionwas filed, following her tetanus vaccine, petitionercomplained ofleft sidedneckpain withpain inher left arm, the arm inwhich she received the vaccine. She likewise presentedto the emergency room multipletimes as well as to herprimary care physicianwith ongoing complaints ofburning and numbness/tingling ofthe left side ofher neck, left arm, and chestas well as headaches. Petitioner also complained oftingling in her legs. She was also noted to have had a rash onher neck onthe left side in approximately February of2013 following her vaccination. Additionally, she was sent for neurological consultation by herprimary care physician as a result ofhercomplaints. A neurological work up by Dr. Kaplan was performed including MRI ofthe brain and a full metabolic panel. Her last visit with him was seemingly the examination ofSeptember23, 2013. Further, based uponthe medical records filed in support ofthepetition, ChiefSpecial Master Dorsey suggested, and respondent initially agreed, to entertain settlement discussions. In so doing, petitioner submitted a settlement demand to respondent and discussions ensued. At somejuncture, respondent asked petitionerfor additional medical records, which were supplied over a several month period during the winter and spring of2015. Discussions apparently broke down after all ofthe additional requested medical records wereprovided, andrespondent filed her Rule 4(c) report. ChiefSpecial Master Dorseythen set a deadline for petitioner's expert report. Reasonable basis was not raised at anytime. A review ofthe billing records shows that petitioner's counsel spoke with petitioner's treatingphysician as well as two experts thereafter. As soon as he learned that he would be unable to secure an expert, he filed to be relieved as counsel, but notbefore anapparent discussion with respondent's counsel. Motion at 16.

7Based upon the medical records, petitionerhad a reasonable basis uponwhichto file the petition, and upon learning he wouldbe unable to secure an expert, Mr. Downing soughtto be relieved as counsel. 3. Challenges to amount offees requested.
In herresponse, respondentprovided no specific objectionto the amount requested orthe hours worked in this matter, but instead offered a range which she believed reasonable for attorney's fees. Response at 3. Respondent "reminded"the Courtofits discretion in awarding fees, quoting 

### Fox v. Vice, and reiterated the fact that 'the determination of[attorneys'] fees "should not result in a second major litigation."' Response at 2-3. Respondentproceeded to claim that a "reasonable" amount for fees and costs in this case would fall between $4,000.00 and $6,000.00, without specifically addressing howthatrange appliedto this particularmatter. Mr. Downing has overtwenty years oflitigation experience and has beenpracticing in the Program for over fourteen years.

### Al-Ujfi v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 6181669, at 

## *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015). Mr. Downing submitted anhourly rate of$350 for himself, $195 for Jordan Redman, $195 for Justin Redman, $100 for Robert Cain and $100 for Danielle Avery; the rates remained consistent overthe three years since Mr. Downing undertook representation ofthe petitioner. Motion for Fees at 34. The submittedrates have beenupheld in a number ofrecent decisions by multiple specialmasters. 

### See e.g. Uscher v. Sec'y of HHS, No. l5-798V, 2016 WL 3670518 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2016);

### Al/icockv. Sec'y of HHS, No. 15-485V, 2016 WL 3571906 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May26, 2016). Mr. Downing'shourlyrates have been approved several times this year, falling into the 

### McCulloch ranges for his tenure (approximately $350 to $425 for attorneys practicing for 20 ormore years). 

### McCulloch v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) 

### motionfor recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). I have awarded Mr. Downing this rate as well ina past decision. 

### See Evans v. Sec'yof HHS, No. 12-706, 2016 WL 4434826 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2016). Hourly rates for bothMr. Jordan Redman and Mr. Justin Redmanhave also been approved as "consistent with prevailing views amongthe special masters."

### Nichols v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 14-1103V, 2016 WL 4272356 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 22, 2016); 

### see also Morris v. Sec'y ofHHS, No. 15-1466V, 2016 WL 4366799 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 2016)(finding an hourly rate of$195 for Jordan Redman reasonable and consistent withprevious rates). Accordingly, I find that the hourlyrates billedbyMr. Downing and his associates are reasonable. Overall, Ifind thatthe hours billed for this matter are reasonable, withthe following exceptions. A review ofthe billing records reveals overbillingby paralegal Robert Cain, who billed 78 minutes for reviewing emails from petitioner, 12 minutes for leaving a voicemail, and 24 minutes each for two telephone calls to a healthcareproviderto check onthe status ofrecord requests. Motion for Fees at 21, 23. The amount oftime spent accomplishingthese tasks appears excessive and there is no explanation given as to why so muchtime wouldhave been spenton these items. Therefore, Ihave reduced this billing as follows: 30 minutes to reviewemails from petitioner, 2 minutes for leaving a voicemail, and 5 minutes each for the telephone calls to

8medical providers to check onthe status ofthe requested medical records. This reduces the respective billing from $230 to $70. Mr. Downing himselfbilled 11 hours onthe phone withpetitioner from July 2013 to October2014

- before the petition was filed. While some ofthese calls were for the purpose of gathering medical records, some ofthe calls were simply status updates on petitioner's claim. It is difficult to see how petitioner could require extensive updates onthe status ofher claim when it had yet to be filed. Accordingly, his hours billed for those telephone calls are reduced from 11 to 5 in total, thereby reducing the respective fees billed from $3,850 to $1,750. Additionally, Mr. Downing billed 7.5 hours for reading and analyzing respondent's response to his application for fees and costs and draftinghis reply brief. Supp. Motion, Ex. B at I. Because Mr. Downing has previously responded to challenges onreasonable basis, the hours billedwill be reduced from 7.5to 5; the total supplemental fees and costs are therefore reduced from $3,002.36 to $2,127.36.
In sum, Mr. Downing requested $22,039.85 in fees and costs in his first fee application; this has been reduced to $19,779.85. Mr. Downingrequested $3002.36 in fees and costs inhis supplemental fee application; this had been reduced to $2,127.36. Therefore, the total amount of fees and costs awarded for this matter is $21,907.21. V. Total Award Summary. Forthe reasons contained herein, a checkin the amount of$21,907.214 madepayable jointly to petitioner, Gaena Laney, and petitioner's former counsel ofrecord, Andrew D. Downing, for petitioner's attorneys' fees and costs shall be issued. The clerk ofthe court shall enterjudgmentin accordance herewith, and transmit this decision to Mr. Downing.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, "advanced costs," as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in additionto the amount awarded herein. See generallyBeckv. Sec 

### '.Yof HHS, 924 F.2d I029 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

5 Entry of judgmentcan be expedited by eachparty's filing ofa notice renouncingthe rightto seek review. See Vaccine Rule Il(a).
9