# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: June 12 , 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

URSULA HALLVIK

, *

* Petitioner, * No. 1 8

- 1297 V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

* Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Shealene P. Mancuso

, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA

, for P etitioner. Debra A. Filteau Begley , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY S ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On August 27, 2018

, Ursula Hallvik (“ P etitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 42 U.S .C. §§ 300aa

- 10 to

- 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that s he suffered peripheral neuropathy as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 3 , 201 6

. See Petition , ECF No. 1

. On January 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss her petition. ECF No. 30. On January 28, 2020, the undersigned issued her Decision dismissing the petition for insufficient proof. ECF No. 31.

On March 5 , 2020

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

No. 32 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys ’ fees and c osts in the amount of $ 14,776.81

, represen ting $ 12,874.90 in attorneys ’ fees and $ 1,901.91 in attorney s ’ costs

. Fees App. at 2

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that s he has not incurred any costs

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 iden tified material fits within this definition, 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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 Sta tes 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, 10 0 Stat. 3755.2

related to this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on March 19 , 2020

, stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of at torneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned “exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2

- 3, ECF No. 55 . Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

Thi s 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 compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, even if they are unsuccessful , they are eligible so long as the Specia l 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, although Petitioner’s claim was eventually dismissed, the undersigned finds that the petition was filed in good faith, and that there was a reasonable basis to file it. Respondent also has not challenged the good faith or reasonable basis. Accordingly, a final reasonable award of attorneys’ fees and costs in appropriate in this case.

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 perform ed 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 providing 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 attorney , Ms. Shealene Mancuso: $225.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $233.00 per hour for work performed in
2018, and $250.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. These rates are consistent with what Ms. Mancuso has previously been awarded for her Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds

them to be reasonable herein.

b. Reasonable Hours E xpended

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 are3

“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 administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States

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

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

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks perform ed, and, upon review, the undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 12,874.90

.

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 $ 1,901.91 in attorneys ’ cost s

. Fees App. at 14

. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, and the Court’s filing fee

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

. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation sup porting the request. Accordingly, the requested attorneys’ costs are

reasonable and shall be reimbursed in full.

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 h er counsel as follows:

Attorneys ’ Fees Requested $ 12,874.90 (Reduction to Fees )

- Total Attorneys ’ Fees Awarded $ 12,874.90

Attorneys ’ Costs Requested $ 1,901.91 (Reduction to Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 1,901.91

Total Amount Awarded $ 14,776.81

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $ 14,776.81

, 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, M s. Shealene Mancuso

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