# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-0196V Filed: February 14, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AVERY KRANZ and AL YSSA KRANZ, * Parents of M.K., a minor, *

*
Petitioners, *

v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Spec ial Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Capla n, P.C., Boston, M.A., for petitioner. Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Departm ent of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On March 2, 2015, Avery and Alyssa Kran z (“petitioners”) filed a petition for compensation under the Nation al Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 [(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner s alleged that their son, M.K. suffered abscesses at the inje ction sites of both the Pent acel (Diphtheria-Tetanusacellular-Pertussis (“DTAP”), Haemophilus influenza type b (“Hib”), inactivated polio (“IPV”), and Prevnar (pneumoco ccal conjugate (“PCV”)) vacci nes he received on March 21, 2013, and the Pentacel and Prevnar vaccines he received on August 19, 2013. On August 17, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awardi ng compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 41).

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reason ed explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal M anagement and Prom otion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other informat ion, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 On December 22, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 46). Petitioners requests attorney s’ fees in the amount of $17,471.20, and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $617. 57, for a total amount of $18,088.77. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioners have filed a signed statement indicating they incurred $1,569.64 in ou t-of-pocket expenses. On J anuary 9, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner s’ motion. (ECF No. 48).

In her response, respondent st ates “[n]either the Vacc ine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in t he resolution of a req uest by petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent does state that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an awar d of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Respondent further states that the “Federal Circuit has also made clear that special masters may rely on their prior experience in making reasonable fee determinations, without conducting a line-by-li ne analysis of the fee bill, and are not required to rely on specific ob jections raised by respondent. Id. at 2. Thus, respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master ex ercise her discretion and

determine a reasonable award for attor neys’ fees and costs in this case.” Id. at 3.

The undersigned fully agrees with the analysis in the McCulloch 3 case regarding appropriate hourly rates for the attorneys in the Conway, Homer, and Chin-Caplan law firm and adopts the same reason ing in this case. Furthermore, the undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with pe titioners’ request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of r easonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioners’ requ est, the undersigned

GRANTS petitioners’ motion for atto rneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the und ersigned awards the total of $19,658.41, 4 as follows:

 A lump sum of $18,088.77, re presenting reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check pa yable jointly to petitioners and petitioners’ counsel, Conway Homer, PC; and

3 McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

4 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses in curred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced co sts” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from chargi ng or collecting fees (including costs) that would

be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).3  A lump sum of $1,569.64, re presenting reimbursement for petitioners’ costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioners.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.