# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: September 28 , 2022

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

MARIA TURKSON

, *

* Petitioner, * No. 18

- 690 V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

* Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Joseph A. Vuckovich

, Maglio Christopher and Toale , P.A., Washington, DC

, for P etitioner. Colleen C. Hartley , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On May 15, 2018

, Maria Turkson (“ P etitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 alleging that s he suffered a shoulder injury

related to vaccine administration as a result of an influenza vaccination she received on October 19, 2015 . Pet. at 1. On December 7 , 2021 , the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on the same day . (ECF No. 62 )

.

On April 14

, 2022

, P etitioner filed an application for final attor neys ’ fees and costs. ( ECF

No. 6 7 ). (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys ’ fees and c osts in the amount of $ 87,790.27

, represen ting $ 84,599.80 in attorneys ’ fees and $ 3,190.47 in attorney s ’ costs

. Fees App. at 2

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, counsel has indicated that Petitioner declined to return an executed copy of Petitioner’s Statement Regarding General Order No. 9 but to his knowledge,

1 The undersigned intend s to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the R uling 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this defini tion, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,

the undersigned is 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).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755.2

Petitioner has not incurred any personal costs

. Respondent responded to the motion on April 14,

2022 , stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned “exercise her discretion

and determi ne a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2

. ( ECF No.

68 ) . Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter

.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the Special Master to award “reasonable

attorneys ' fees , and other costs.” § 300aa

– 15(e)(1)(A)

– (B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys ' fees and costs if they are entitled to compens ation under the Vaccine Act, or, even if they are unsuccessful , they are eligible so long as the Special Master finds that the petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, s he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

It is “well within the special master's discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 3 F.3d 1517, 1521

– 22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[ T]he reviewing court must grant the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys ' fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys ' fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that indicate the work perfo rmed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316

– 18 (2008).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984) . The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. The petitioner bears the burden of provi ding adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

a. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for h er attorne ys: for Mr. Joseph

Vuckovich

, $ 345 .00 per hour for work performed in 2020 , $ 370 .00 per hour for work performed

in 2021 , and $ 385 .00 for work performed in 2022 ; for Mr. FJ Caldwell, $356.00 per hour for work performed in 2016, $367.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $385.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, and $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2019; and for Ms. Amber Wilson, $323.00 per hour for work performed in 2019 and $345.00 per hour for work performed in 2020.

These rates are consistent with what counsel have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.

b. Reasonable Hours E xpended3

Attorneys ' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Avera , 515 F.3d at 1348 . Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton

, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v.

Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well

- established that billing for

admin istrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States

, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 02

- 1616V, 2018 WL 2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).

T he overall h ours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has reviewed the billing entries and finds that they adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable

, nor h as
R espondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, P etitioner is awarded final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 84,599.80

.

c. Attorneys ’ Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitione r requests
a total of $ 3,190.47 in attorneys ’ cost s

. Fees App. Ex. 2

. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage

, the Court’s filing fee , and travel costs for a client visit

. All of these costs are typical of Vaccine Program litigation and are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience

. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the request.

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e) (2012), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that P etitione r’s request for fees and

costs is reasonable. T he undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate P etitioner and her

counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $ 84,599.80 (Reduction to Fees)

- Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $ 84,599.80

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $ 3,190.47 (Reduction to Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 3,190.47

Total Amount Awarded $ 87,790.27

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $ 87,790.27

, representing reimbursement for reasonable attorneys ’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to P etitioner and P etitioner’s counsel of record, Mr. Joseph Vuckovich , to be forwarded to Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota

Florida 34236

.4

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler Special Master

3 Entry of judg ment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).