# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ( Case No. 17

- 1617V )

JOYCE CARTER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Master Dorsey

Filed : May 11, 2020

Attorney s ’ Fees and Costs

Paul R. Brazil

, Muller Brazil, LLP

, Dresher, PA

, for petitioner. Debra A. Filteau Begley , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On October 27, 2017, Joyce Carter (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vacc ine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petitioner alleged that she developed acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis ( “ ADEM ” ) due to the influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine she received on February 25, 2016. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). On November 1 8

, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation for award,

which the undersigned adopted as her Decision award ing compensation on November 19, 2020. Decision. (ECF No. 37).

On January 24 , 2020 , petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (E CF No. 42 ). Petitioner requests compensation in the amount of $ 20,257.60 , representing $ 15,262.5 0 in att orneys’ fees and $ 4,995.10 in costs. Fees App. at 1. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that she has not personally incurred costs in pursuit of this litigation. Id. at 2 . Respondent filed his response on January 9,

2020 indicating that h e “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees

1 This decision will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance

with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with acc ess to the internet. As provided by 44 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)B) , however, the parties may object to the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical filed or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise the w hole decision will be available to the public in its

current form. Id

.and costs are met in this case.” Response, ( ECF No. 43 at 2 ) . Petitioner did not file a reply. The

matter is now ripe for disposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and awards a total of $ 20,257.60

.

I. Discussion

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensa tion. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e)(1 ). When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. at §15(e)(1). In this case, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to a reasonable award of final attorney s’ fees and costs.

a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” I d

. at 1347

- 58 (quoting Blum v.

Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id

. at
1348.

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 and Human Servs

. , 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316

- 18 (2 008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health and 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 obj ections 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 a petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Pr ogram and its attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs. , 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991) rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant part, 988 F. 2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just a s “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests ...[v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee

application.” Saxton

, 3 F. 3d at 1521.

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel, Mr. Paul R.

Brazil : $ 300 .00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $3 17 .00 per hour for work performed in 2018, and $ 325 .00 per hour for w ork performed in 2019. Fees App. at 1

. Petitioner also requests rates for the paralegals at the rates of $ 125

- $154 from 201 7

– 2019. Id. These rates

are consistent with what Mr. Brazil and his paralegals ha ve previously been awarded for his

work in the V accine Program, and the undersigned finds the rates to be reasonable in this case

as well.

ii. Reasonable Hours Expended

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds the total number

of hours billed to be reasonable. The billing entries accurately reflect the nature of the work performed and the undersigned does not find any of the entries to be objectionable. Respondent also has not indicated that he finds any of the entries to be objectionable either. Accordingly, petiti oner is entitled to the full amount of attorneys’ fees sought, $ 20,257.60

.

b. Attorneys’ Costs

Petitioner requests a total of $ 4,995.10 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, travel costs for petitioner , and the Court ’s filing fee. Fees App. at 2

. All of these costs are typical of Vaccine Program litigation and petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting them. Accordingly, the requested attorneys’ costs are reasonable, and petitioner shall be fully reimbu rsed.

II. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable c ompensate petitioner and her counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $ 15,262.50 (Total Reduction from Billing Hours)

- Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $ 15,262.50

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $ 4,995.10 (Reduction of Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 4,995.10

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $ 20,257.60

Accordingly, the undersigned awards $ 20,257.60 in attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Paul R. Brazil

.In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk

of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordan ce with this decision. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master

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