# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19

- 481 V (not to be published)

MICH AE L B. JORDAN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SEC RETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

F iled: April 5, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Attorney’s Fees and Costs

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA , for P etitioner.

C hristine Mary Becer , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DE CISION ON ATTORNEY ’S FEES AND COSTS 1

O n April 1, 2019

, Michael B. Jordan 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 alleges that he suffered Guillain -Barré s yndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on August 14, 2017

. ( Petition at 1). On November 24,
2020

, a decision was issued awarding compensation to P etitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer

. (ECF No. 32 ).

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the D ecision 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 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 redact such material from 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 references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 

### Co rrected2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated March 3,
2021 (ECF No. 36 ) , requesting a total award of $ 32,336.42 (representing $ 28,763.60 in fees and $ 3,572.82 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that he incurred no out

- of

- pocket expenses. (ECF No. 36

- 3 )

. Respondent reacted to the motion on March 17, 2021, indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case

, but defers resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion

. (ECF No. 17 ). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’s request. In my experience , the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested
hours or rates.

ANALYSIS

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

. 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
& Huma n 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 p etitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended , the rates charged, and the expenses incu rred.” 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. 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 pr ivate practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley

, 461 U.S. at 434.3 ATTORNEY FEE S

Petitioner requests compensation for attorney David Tierney at the following rates: $200 per hour for time billed in 2018; $215 per hour for time billed in 2019; $231 per hour
for time billed in 2020 ; and $278 per hour for time billed in 2021. (ECF No. 36 at 3). The
rates for 2018

- 2020 have been previously reviewed in other cases and deemed appropriate and shall be awarded in this matter as well . For 2021, the requested increased rate of $278 per hour is also reasonable . The increase brings Mr. Tierney to his appropriate range on the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Sch edules. 3

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner requests $3,572.82 in overall costs. (ECF No. 36 at 2 ). This amount is comprised of obtaining medical records, pacer fees and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed all of the requested costs and find them to be reasonable and shall award it in
full.

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonab le attorney ’ s fees and costs

. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney ’ s fees and costs. I
award a total of $ 32,336.42 (representing $ 28,763.60 in fees and $ 3,572.82 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel

. In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

3 Mr. Tierney’s rate inc rease for from 2020 to 2021 represents an atypically

- large dollar increase for a single year. This was necessary to bring Mr. Tierney’s rate into the appropriate range for attorneys with his experience. In the future, Mr. Tierney should not expect his hour ly rate to be increased in the same manner.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.