# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: February 25 , 2022

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

JULIE WILTSE

, *

*
Petitioner, * No. 1 9

- 1273 V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

* Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Bridget C. McCullough

, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA

, for P etitioner. Mary E. Holmes , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On August 26, 2019

, Julie Wiltse (“ P etitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 alleging that s he suffered from Guillain

Barr é syndrome as a result of a tetanus

- diphtheria

- acellular pertussis vaccination s he rec eived on May 9, 2017 . Pet. at 1. On July 6 , 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on July 7, 2021 . (ECF No. 28 ).

On December 2 , 2021

, P etitioner filed an application for final attor neys ’ fees and costs. ( ECF No. 3 4 ) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys ’ fees and c osts in the amount of $ 20,066.63

, represen ting $ 18,0 74 .00 in attorneys ’ fees and $ 1,992.63 in attorney s ’ costs

. Fees App. at 2

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that s he has not incurred any costs related to this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on December 2 , 2021, stating that

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 definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public acc ess. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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

“Respondent is satisfied the statutory requi rements for an award of attorneys’ 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. (ECF No. 3 5 ). 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

rec ords that indicate the work performed 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

relevan t 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 bear s 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. Bridget McCullough : $2 25 .00 per hour for work performed in 2018 and 2019 , $25 0 .00 per hour for work performed in 2020 , and $275 .00 per hour for work performed in 2021

. Fees App at 1. These rates

are consistent with what Ms. McCullough has previously been awarded for her Vaccine Program
work, and the u ndersigned 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 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

,3

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 entitled to a final award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 18,0 74 .00

.

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 $ 1,992.63 in attorneys ’ cost s

. Fees App. at 1 9

. 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

. Accordingly, the costs shall

be fully reimbursed.

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 undersigne d finds that it is reasonable to compensate P etitioner and her

counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $ 18,074.00
(Reduction to Fees)

- Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $ 18,0 74 .00

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $ 1,992.63
(Reduction to Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 1,992.63

Total Amount Awarded $ 20,066.63

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $ 20,066.63

, 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. Bridget McCullough

.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the r ight to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).4 s/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler Special Master