# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 1774 V

Filed: October 29, 2020

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

ESTON HOOD

, * UNPUBLISHED
Petitioner, *

*

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Ronald Homer

, Conway Homer, P.C.

, Boston, M.A. , for p etitioner

. Julia Collison

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for r espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Roth , Special Master:

On November 13, 2017, Eston Hood ( “Mr. Hood” or “petitioner” ) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petitioner alleges that

he suffered Guillain

- Barr é s yndrome after receiving an influenza vaccine on Octobe r 31, 2014.

See Petition, ECF No. 1. On March 23 , 2020, Respondent filed his proffer which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on the same day. ECF No. 58

.

On July 16 , 2020

, p etitioner filed an application for final attorn eys’ fees and costs. ECF

No. 63 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $ 63,044.16 (representing $ 44,439.30 in attorneys’ fees and $ 18,153.67 in costs)

. Fees App

. at 2

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, counsel for petitioner warrants that petitioner has personally

incurred costs in the amount of $451.19

. ECF No. 64

. Respondent respon ded to the motion on

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

means the decision 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 privac y. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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 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

July 21 , 2020 , stating “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements 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.” Res ponse at 2

- 3

, ECF No. 65

. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Legal Framework

The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is

automatic. Id. ; see Sebelius v. Cloer , 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a proffer , he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Federal Circuit has endorsed the use of the lodestar approach to determine what

constitutes “reasonable attorne ys' fees” and “other costs” under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec'y of

Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys' fees” is calculated by “multiplying the number of hours

r easonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. at 1347

– 48 (quoting

Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward based on other specific findings. Id.

Special masters have substanti al discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request

sua sponte , apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing petitioners with notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 86 Fed. Cl.
201, 209 (2009). Special masters need not engage in a line

- by

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

II. Discussion

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera , 515 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Blum , 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate i s based on “the forum rate for the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of petitioner's attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Avera , 515 F. 3d at 1 349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorney's fees to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly r ate and forum hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human3

Servs. , 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA , 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D. C. Cir. 1999)).

For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys' fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 09

– 293V , 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years. 2

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel Mr. Homer

, associate attorneys

, law clerks and paralegals :

2017 2018 2019 2020

R. Homer $409 $421 $430 $447

M. Daniels $286 $294 $320 $350
J. Pepper

- $305 $325 $355

L. Faga

- $289 $285

- C. Ciampolillo

- - $350

- P. Kelly

- - - $225

Law Clerks $148 $152 $155 $155 Paralegals $138 $142 $145 $155

These hourly rates are consistent with what Mr. Homer and his staff have pre viously been

awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.

B. Hours Reasonably 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 ex rel. 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)). “Unreasonably duplicative or exc essive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 703 (2016). While attorneys may be compensated for non

- attorney

- level work, the rate must be comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v . Sec'y of Health &

Human Servs. , No. 08

– 243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g.

, McCulloch , 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at one

half of the normal hourly attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 08

– 756V,

2 The 2015

- 2020 Fee Schedules can be accessed at http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914

. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs. , No. 09

- 293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Ms tr. Sept. 1, 2015).4

2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cas es). And “it is inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , No 14

– 1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Ultimately, i t 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.” Saxton , 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number

of ho urs submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen , 102 Fed. Cl. at 728

– 29 (affirming the Special Master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of

Health & Human Servs

., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).

T he overa ll h ours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has reviewed the billing entries and finds that th ey adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable

, n or has r espondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a final award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 44,439.30

.

C. Reasonable 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). Petitioner requests a total of $ 18,153.67 in costs for acquiring medical records, costs associated with travel, shipping

and the Court’s filing fee

. The und ersigned finds th ese cost s reasonable and supported with adequate documentation . Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the full amount of costs sought.

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, p etitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is

GRANTED

. The undersigned find s that the p etitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of attorneys’

fees and costs as follows:

1) A lump sum of $ 62,592.97 , representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,

Ronald Homer ; and

2) A lump sum of $ 451.19 , representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 3

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. 4

3 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,” and fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, Section 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney fr om 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).

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master