DEC 1 2016

' ORIGf f\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. • 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Gaena Laney, pro se, Greenbrier, TN. 

Adriana Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, Phoenix, AZ, former counsel for petitioner. 

DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS1 

Roth, Special Master: 

On October 14, 2014, Gaena Laney ("Ms. Laney" or "petitioner") filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 0, 

et seq.2 (the "Vaccine Act" or "Program"). Petitioner alleged that on the night that she received 

the tetanus toxoid vaccination she began "running a fever," and "she began experiencing blurred 

vision, and pressure and pain at the site of the injection." See Petition ("Pet."), ECF No. 1, at I. 

"She complained of radiation to her left arm and pain in her neck, describing it as burning that 

occurred constantly." Id. She also complained of"numbness and tingling" as a result ofa tetanus 

toxoid vaccine received on January 16, 2013. Id. Petitioner further alleged that she "continues to 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it 

will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of2002 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule l 8(b ), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other 

information, 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 delete such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, I 00 Stat. 3755 (1986). 

Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent 

subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 
have sharp and severe jaw, 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 pursuant to Section 15( e) of the Vaccine Act. After careful consideration, the 

undersigned has determined to grant the request in part and deny the request in part for the 

reasons set forth below. 

I. Facts. 

Petitioner was born on April 11, 1968. She was a homemaker at the time of the allegedly 

causal vaccine. Petitioner's medical history included complaints of chest pain, mitral valve 

prolapse, reactive airway disease, and shortness of breath. Pet. Ex. 3 at 58, 64; Pet. Ex. 4 at 7; 

Pet. Ex. 5 at 109, 112. Petitioner has an extensive history of allergic reactions, including but not 

limited to: 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, petitioner was prescribed doxycycline to treat an infected piercing. 

Pet. Ex. 3 at 11, 12; Pet. Ex. 5 at 130. The next day, January 16, 2013, petitioner visited her 

primary care physician ("PCP") at FirstCare Mission & Crossover Clinic and received 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 

onset was 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 - blurred vision. 

Pertinent negatives include - airway constriction - pain - dysphagia - headache. Pt experiencing 

poss allergic reaction. Has recently taken Doxycycline & received tetnus (sic) shot, now feels 

pressure on/around throat. Pt states she is having trouble swallowing. Pt has dentures and states 

dentures are making her throat feel worse." Pet. Ex. 3 at 10. 

On February 7, 2013, petitioner returned to her PCP with "allergic reaction. The onset 

was 3 week(s) ago. Location is neck. There is radiation to left arm. The patient describes it as 

burning. It occurs constantly. Status: no change. She is also experiencing - burning -

numbness/tingling. Pt is still experiencing 'burning' feeling on the L side of her neck radiating to 

her left arm which she attributes to the tetanus injection she received 3 wks ago. States another 

physician advised having a steroid injection or oral steroids." Pet. Ex. 3 at 7. Petitioner may or 

may not have had a rash on her 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, petitioner presented to the emergency department at Washington 

Regional Medical Center ("WRMC") with a chief complaint of having weakness, dizziness and 

lightheadedness, throat pain, swelling on the left side, headache, and neck pain. Pet. Ex. 5 at 126. 

It was noted that she had a tetanus 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 indicated that she felt unsteady. Id. She noted gradual onset 

and worsening symptoms. Id. She noted being shaky in the morning. Id. at 130. She was 

2 
concerned that she was having a "possible anaphylactic reaction from tetanus shot received on 

January 16 this year or possible medical reaction to doxycycline started for prophylactic against 

possible infection of piercings." Id. A full work up was performed, and petitioner was 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 1 month ago with 

subsequent reaction to doxycycline. Pt. came to the ER over the weekend and was diagnosed 

with viral syndrome. Pt. report (sic) she has continued neck stiffness and is extremely anxious. 

Pt. was given Ativan 0.5 mg for home but patient said she began to 'see double' while on the 

medication and believes she should no longer take it." Pet. Ex. 5 at 92. Apparently the "Pt. left 

treatment area without notifying personnel and did not return." Id. at 92. 

On that same day, petitioner returned to her PCP for hospital follow up. Petitioner was 

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't remember anything 

after med was administered. She was also DIC with rx 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, "pt left prior to being seen." Pet. Ex. 5 at 91. Four days after that, on February 19, 

2013, petitioner again presented to her PCP, complaining of chest pain. Pet. Ex. 3 at 40. 

Petitioner then visited the emergency department on February 28, 2013, complaining of 

intermittent palpitations, but denied chest pain. Pet. Ex. 5 at 63-64. A nurse noted, "pt had 

stomach virus and high fever on Monday [February 25, 2013]." Id. at 69. Petitioner also 

complained of shooting pains in her 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 generally Pet. Ex. 5 at 63-87. 

Petitioner did not visit her PCP or the emergency department again until June 22, 2013, 

when she presented to the emergency department at WRMC complaining of chest and neck pain. 

See generally Pet. Ex. 5 at 9-43. A chest x-ray was performed, which was normal. Id. A 

comprehensive metabolic panel was performed and was also normal. Petitioner was discharged 

with a diagnosis of chest wall strain and cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 16. An outpatient MRI was 

ordered, and petitioner was instructed to follow up with her PCP. Id. 

Petitioner presented to WRMC on June 28, 2013 for an x-ray of her sinuses due to a 

history of metal in her eye. The x-ray was normal. Pet. Ex. 5 at 50. An MRI without contrast of 

her cervical spine for neck pain was also performed. The results were normal. Id. at 50-51. 

Petitioner returned to her PCP four days later, on July 2, 2013, complaining of constant 

pain in the left side of her neck that radiated into her jaw, as well as burning and pressure. Pet. 

Ex. 3 at 13. She reported that the pain was a reaction to the tetanus vaccine. Id. 

3 
Petitioner subsequently presented to MANA Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic ("FDC") for 

neurological workup at the request of her PCP on July 17, 2013, for facial burning, neck pain, 

pain in limb and facial pain. Pet. Ex. 4 at 3, 12 and 13. Several tests were performed, including 

a blood draw, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, as well as vitamin B 12 and folate tests. 

Pet. Ex. 4 at 13. 

In a letter to petitioner's PCP following the July 17, 2013 visit, Dr. Kaplan ofFDC wrote 

that he had seen petitioner for a neurological consultation for a number of symptoms following a 

tetanus booster. Pet. Ex. 4 at 16-17. He noted that her chief complaints included severe clenching 

pain in her neck area, her neck feeling swollen, burning from her cheek to her collarbone, and 

pain in her left upper arm. Id. She also had shooting pains in her legs. Id. Dr. Kaplan noted that 

he had reviewed all tests performed so far and had never seen anything like her complaints 

before. Id. 

Dr. Kaplan ordered an MRI of the brain for complaints of "facial burning, left arm, 

severe neck spasm from tetanus shot, 01-16-13." The MRI performed on July 25, 2013 was 

unremarkable. Pet. Ex. 4 at 19. 

Petitioner returned to FDC on August 8, 2013, for a "follow up of neck pain." Pet. Ex. 4 

at l 0. The assessment on that date was "pain in 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. It was noted that petitioner'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 but to a 

lesser degree. 3. Pain in her anterior neck - 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 down to her 

collarbone. These are improved a bit. She is now reporting some random twitching in her left 

upper eyelid about 2 times a day that lasts about a minute or two." 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-Chief Special 

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 of completion was filed on 

October 17, 2014. Statement of Completion, 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 been filed and "given that petitioner's 

condition was improving." Scheduling Order, ECF No. 9. The parties agreed to discuss 

settlement, and on December 1, 2014, petitioner transmitted a demand to respondent. Joint Status 

Report, ECF No. 13. Discussions continued and respondent apparently requested additional 

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

4 
medical records from petitioner before continuing settlement discussions. Joint Status Report, 

ECF No. 15. 

Petitioner submitted additional medical records (Pet. Ex. 8-11) on February 19, 2015; 

April 1, 2015; April 8, 2015; and June 18, 2015. Medical Records, ECFNos. 17, 21, 23, 26. 

Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report ("Rsp. Rpt.") on May 26, 2015, indicating that petitioner's 

alleged injury was not appropriate for compensation. Rsp. Rpt., ECF No. 24. Chief Special 

Master Dorsey held a Rule 5 status conference on June 25, 2015, in which she ordered the parties 

to submit expert reports. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 27. Petitioner's expert report was originally 

due by September 23, 2015; on September 21, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for extension of 

time ("First MFET") until October 23, 2015, to file her expert report. First MFET, ECF No. 29. 

The chief special master granted this motion. 

This case was reassigned to me on October 21, 2015. Notice of Reassignment, ECF No. 

32. Petitioner subsequently filed motions for extension of time 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 ("Motion to Withdraw"). Motion to 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 application for attorney's fees and costs by no later than May 

25, 2016. Order, ECF No. 42. On May 18, 2016, Mr. Downing filed a motion for attorney's fees 

and costs electronically; as petitioner was pro se at this point, this case had been removed from 

electronic filing and all subsequent filings were required to be in paper form. Therefore, Mr. 

Downing's application was struck from the docket and he was ordered to file his application for 

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") on June 8, 2016, in paper 

form, requesting attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $22,039.85. Motion, ECF No. 45. 

Respondent filed a Response ("Response") to Mr. Downing's Motion on June 27, 2016. 

Response, ECF No. 46. On July 7, 2016, Mr. Downing filed a Reply to Response to Motion 

("Reply"). Reply, ECF No. 47. Mr. Downing filed a Supplement to 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 of the presiding special master. See Carrington v. Sec'y of HHS, 85 Fed. Cl. 319, 322-

23 (2008). Special masters are afforded considerable discretion when considering motions for 

5 
attorney fees. For instance, it is within a special master's discretion to reduce fees sua sponte, 

without warning to petitioners. Sabella v. Secy of HHS, 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 208-09 (Mar. 2, 2009). 

IV. Discussion. 

Petitioner's former counsel properly filed a Motion for 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 her response filed on June 27, 2016, respondent objected first to 

reasonable basis both at the time of filing and throughout the pendency of this case and second to 

the payment of interim 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 on July 7, 2016. See generally Reply, 

ECF No. 47. Petitioner's former counsel argued that respondent's counsel was conflating the 

standard for "reasonable basis" with the standard for "likelihood of prevailing on the 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 Motion requesting 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 of fees and costs. 

Interim fees may be paid at the discretion of the special master. See Avera v. Secy of 

HHS, 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Interim fees are particularly appropriate in cases 

where proceedings are protracted and costly experts must be retained.") While they are not 

routinely awarded, interim fees may be awarded when petitioner's counsel withdraws from a 

case. See, e.g, Woods v. Sec'y of HHS, I 05 Fed. Cl. 148, 154 (Fed. Cl. 2012). However, "the 

mere fact that an attorney plans to withdraw is not necessarily a hardship that triggers an award 

of interim 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 order to schedule a status conference, I 

expect that counsel may have difficulties in getting Ms. Laney's cooperation now that he is no 

longer her attorney, and therefore 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 of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs ifthe petition 

was "brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis." 15(e)(l). Reasonable basis is 

typically viewed as "an objective standard determined by the 'totality of the circumstances.'" 

Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 286 (2014) (citations omitted). This somewhat 

amorphous standard has often been defined not by what it includes, but rather 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." Di Roma v. Secy of HHS, No. 90-3277, 

1993 WL 496981, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 1993). Additionally, a case may have 

reasonable basis when filed, but may lose reasonable basis during the pendency of the case. 

Perreira v. Secy of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1994); McNett v. Secy of HHS, No. 

99-684V, 2011 WL 760314, at *6. (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2011). Furthermore, the burden 

6 
lies with the petitioner to "affirmatively demonstrate a reasonable basis." McKel/ar, IOI Fed. Cl. 

at 305. Some of the factors considered when assessing reasonable basis include: "'the factual 

basis, the medical support, jurisdiction issues', and the circumstances under which a petition is 

filed." Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 288 (citing Di Roma, 1993 WL 496981, at*!). Neither the fact 

that no medical records or supportive expert opinion was filed nor the fact that the claim was 

filed beyond the statute of limitations automatically negates a finding of reasonable basis. 

Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 288 (citations omitted). Furthermore, "[a] looming statute of 

limitations does not forever absolve a petitioner from his or her obligation to proceed with a 

reasonable basis to support his claim, at least not if the petitioner hopes to recover any fees and 

costs." Id at 287 (citations omitted). 

In the present case, the undersigned finds that the petitioner had 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 staff then obtained, reviewed, and summarized medical records requested and 

received for the petitioner's medical care following the January 16, 2013 tetanus vaccine through 

what appeared to be her final treatment in September of 2013. Counsel had numerous 

conversations with the petitioner, and based upon her complaints and the medical records 

received, correctly determined that there was sufficient information to suggest that Petitioner had 

a compensable case. Therefore, I find that petitioner's counsel fulfilled his duty to investigate the 

claim and did so through extensive discussions with petitioner, along with a review of the 

medical records in his possession. 

More specifically, as set forth at length above in my analysis of the medical records that 

were in the possession of petitioner's attorney at the time the Petition was filed, following her 

tetanus vaccine, petitioner complained of left sided neck pain with pain in her left arm, the arm 

in which she received the vaccine. She likewise presented to the emergency room multiple times 

as well as to her primary care physician with ongoing complaints of burning and 

numbness/tingling of the left side of her neck, left arm, and chest as well as headaches. Petitioner 

also complained of tingling in her legs. She was also noted to have had a rash on her neck on the 

left side in approximately February of2013 following her vaccination. Additionally, she was 

sent for neurological consultation by her primary care physician as a result of her complaints. A 

neurological work up by Dr. Kaplan was performed including MRI of the brain and a full 

metabolic panel. Her last visit with him was seemingly the examination of September 23, 2013. 

Further, based upon the medical records filed in support of the petition, Chief Special 

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 

some juncture, respondent asked petitioner for additional medical records, which were supplied 

over a several month period during the winter and spring of2015. Discussions apparently broke 

down after all of the additional requested medical records were provided, and respondent filed 

her Rule 4( c) report. Chief Special Master Dorsey then set a deadline for petitioner's expert 

report. Reasonable basis was not raised at any time. A review of the billing records shows that 

petitioner's counsel spoke with petitioner's treating physician 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 not before an apparent discussion with respondent's counsel. Motion at 16. 

7 
Based upon the medical records, petitioner had a reasonable basis upon which to file the 

petition, and upon learning he would be unable to secure an expert, Mr. Downing sought to be 

relieved as counsel. 

3. Challenges to amount of fees requested. 

In her response, respondent provided no specific objection to the amount requested or the 

hours worked in this matter, but instead offered a range which she believed reasonable for 

attorney's fees. Response at 3. Respondent "reminded" the Court of its 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. Respondent proceeded 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 how that range applied to this particular matter. 

Mr. Downing has over twenty years of litigation experience and has been practicing 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 an hourly 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 over the three years since Mr. Downing undertook 

representation of the petitioner. Motion for Fees at 34. The submitted rates have been upheld in 

a number of recent decisions by multiple special masters. See e.g. Uscher v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 

l 5-798V, 2016 WL 3670518 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2016); Al/icock v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 

15-485V, 2016 WL 3571906 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 26, 2016). Mr. Downing's hourly rates 

have been approved several times this year, falling into the McCulloch ranges for his tenure 

(approximately $350 to $425 for attorneys practicing for 20 or more years). McCulloch v. Sec'y 

of HHS, No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) motion for 

recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). I have awarded Mr. 

Downing this rate as well in a past decision. See Evans v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 12-706, 2016 WL 

4434826 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2016). Hourly rates for both Mr. Jordan Redman and Mr. 

Justin Redman have also been approved as "consistent with prevailing views among the 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 

with previous rates). Accordingly, I find that the hourly rates billed by Mr. Downing and his 

associates are reasonable. 

Overall, I find that the hours billed for this matter are reasonable, with the following 

exceptions. A review of the billing records reveals overbilling by 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 healthcare provider to check on the status of record 

requests. Motion for Fees at 21, 23. The amount of time spent accomplishing these tasks appears 

excessive and there is no explanation given as to why so much time would have been spent on 

these items. Therefore, I have reduced this billing as follows: 30 minutes to review emails from 

petitioner, 2 minutes for leaving a voicemail, and 5 minutes each for the telephone calls to 

8 
medical providers to check on the status of the requested medical records. This reduces the 

respective billing from $230 to $70. 

Mr. Downing himself billed 11 hours on the phone with petitioner from July 2013 to 

October 2014 - before the petition was filed. While some of these calls were for the purpose of 

gathering medical records, some of the calls were simply status updates on petitioner's claim. It 

is difficult to see how petitioner could require extensive updates on the status of her 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 drafting his reply brief. Supp. Motion, Ex. B at 

I. Because Mr. Downing has previously responded to challenges on reasonable basis, the hours 

billed will be reduced from 7. 5 to 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. Downing requested $3002.36 in fees and costs in his 

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. 

For the reasons contained herein, a check in the amount of$21,907.214 made payable 

jointly to petitioner, Gaena Laney, and petitioner's former counsel of record, Andrew D. 

Downing, for petitioner's attorneys' fees and costs shall be issued. 

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 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 addition to the amount awarded 

herein. See generally Beck v. Sec '.Y of HHS, 924 F.2d I 029 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

5 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party's filing of a notice renouncing the right to 

seek review. See Vaccine Rule I l(a). 

9