# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-609V Filed: June 29, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HAROLD PADDLETY, *

* Petitioner, *

v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin -Caplan, PC, Boston, MA, for petitioner. Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 14, 2014, petitioner filed a pet ition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barre Sy ndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his influenza (“flu”) vaccinat ion on September 26, 2011. Peti tion at 1. On January 20, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awardi ng compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ Stipulation. (ECF No. 39).

On May 25, 2016, petitioner filed an applic ation for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 44). Petitioner requests attor neys’ fees in the amount of $28,220.10 and

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 attorneys’ costs in the amount of $5,473.72 for a tota l amount of $33,693.82. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petit ioner filed a signed statement indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 45). On June 13, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner ’s application. (ECF No. 46).

In her response, respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for res pondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that she “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees

and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent further “asserts that a reasonable

amount for fees and costs in the present case would fa ll between $18,000.00 to $22,000.00” citing two “similarly- postured” GBS cases where the stipulated award of attorneys’ fees and costs fell within the given range. Id. at 3.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. 3

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost s. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned

GRANTS petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $33,693.82 4 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C.

3 The undersigned notes that a review of petitioner’s counsel’s billing and costs records indicates that petitioner’s counsel retained a life care planner to assi st in the resolution of this claim. The undersigned finds the retention of a life care planner reasonable gi ven the nature of this claim. However, petitioner’s counsel is cautioned that engaging experts, including life care planners, is not routine in SPU cases and may not be found to be a reasonable cost depending on t he circumstances of the case. Accordingly, in SPU cases the parties should not retain a medical expert, life care planner, or other expert without consulting with each other and the court. If counse l retains an expert without consulting with the court, reimbursement of those costs may be affected.

4 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred 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 char ging 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 The clerk of the court shall ent er 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.