# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 1862 V

Filed: February 14, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

B.C. a minor , by and through his parent and natural guardian

, RACHELLE GUCWA

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY S’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On December 1, 2017

, Rachelle Gucwa (“ petitioner ”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury C ompensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”) on behalf of her son, B.C . Petitioner alleges

that B.C. suffered from intussusception as a result of a rotavirus vaccine he received on

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.

This means the decisi on 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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United State s Court of Federal Claims'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. 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

July 26, 2016 . Petition at 1

. On November 5, 2018 , the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer

. ECF No. 27

.

On January 17, 2019 , petitioner filed a motion f or attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF

No. 31 . Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 13,440.40 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $ 1,131.91

. Id. at 2

. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out

- of

- pocket expenses. Id. at

2. Thus, the total amount requested is $ 14,572.31

.

On February 1, 2019 , respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF

No. 32

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

satisfie d the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in

this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees

and cos ts.” Id. at 3.

Petitioner has filed no reply.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the

reasons listed below.

I. Legal Standar d

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

. § 15(e). 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 & Hum an Servs. , 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316

- 18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & 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 objections 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 engaged in a line

- by

- line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

The p etitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended , the rates charged, and the expens es incu rred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24

Cl. Ct. at 482, 484 (1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees3

and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley , 461 U.S. , at 434.

II. Attorney Fees

A . Administrative Time

Upon review of the billing records submitted, it appears that a number of entries

are for tasks considered clerical or administrative. In the Vaccine Program, secretarial

work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S. , 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Dingle v. Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs. , No. 08

- 579V, 2014 WL 630473, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 24, 2014). “[B] illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. ” Mostovoy , 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (citing Rochester

, 18 Cl. Ct. at 387). A total of 0.9 hours was billed on tasks cons idered administrative including, opening the file, processing invoices, and reviewing filing receipts

. Examples of these

entries include 3 ;

• December 15, 2016 (0.3 0 hrs) “Open client file”

• December 1 , 2017 (0.10 hrs) “Review of receipt from Court”

ECF No. 3 1 at 5 and 7

.

The undersigned reduces the request for attorney fees by $ 157.50 4 , the total

amount of the entries considered administrative.

B. Duplicative Entries

The undersigned notes that an entry was duplicated on the billing invoice. The entry is dated June 20, 2018 for 0.20 hrs, “Review and upload of damages documents.”

Id. at 8. T he undersigned reduces the request for fees by $ 30.00 , the amount of the duplicated entry

.

III. Attorney Costs

Petitioner requests reimbursement for attorney costs in the amount of $ 1,131.91

. After reviewing petitioner’s invoices, the undersigned finds no cause to reduce petitioner’s request and awards the full amount of attorney costs sought.

3 These are merely examples and not an exhaustive list.

4 This amount consists of ($ 275 x .03 0 hrs = $ 82.50 ) + ($125 x 0.60 hrs = $ 75) = $ 157.50.4

IV. Conclusion

Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS

IN PART petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly , the undersigned awards the total of $ 14,384.8 1 5 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel

Maximillian J. Muller

.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

5 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 costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging 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).

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