# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: August 14, 2020

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

SCOTT SKILES and MISTY SKILES, * parents of M.S., a minor, * No. 1 8

- 1597 V

* Special Master Sanders

Petitioner s
, *

* UNPUBLISHED

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Ronald C. Homer

, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA

, for Petitioner s ; Sarah C. Duncan , United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On October 16, 2018

, Scott and Misty Skiles (“Petitioner s ”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National V accine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their

minor child M.S

. 2 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10 et seq. (2012). Petitioner s alleged that the influenza

vaccine M.S. received on October 1 5 , 2015, cause d her to develop transverse myelitis. On
November 11, 2019 the parties filed a stipulation for award, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on November 14, 2019 . ECF No. 29

.

1 The undersigned intends 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 re dact 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims'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

- Govern ment 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. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).On April 3 , 2020 , Petitioner s filed a motion for attorney s’ fees and costs. ECF No. 36

(“Fees App. ”). Petitioner s request total attorney s’ fee s and costs in the amount of $ 30,541.01

, representing $ 28,565.20 in attorney s’ fees and $ 1, 505.81 in attorney s’ costs. Fees App. at 1.

Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner s ha ve indicated that they has incurred o ut of pocket

costs in the amount of $ 470.00

. ECF No. 37

. Respondent responded to the motion on April 7

, 2020 , stating that Respondent “ is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case ” and asking the Court to “exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2

- 3, ECF No. 38

. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys ’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys ’ fees and

costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two

- step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly

rate.’” Id. at 1347

– 48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may

m ake an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348

.

It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.

Sa xton 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 reasonablen ess of both attorneys ’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys ’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 8 5 Fed. Cl. 313, 316

– 18 (2008). Such applications, however, should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

Reasonable hourly rates are de termined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum , 465 U.S. at 895. 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. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence t o prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

a

. Hourly Rate

The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience o f the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs. , No. 09

- 293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied , 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). TheCourt has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys ’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee

Schedules for 2015

– 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 , and 2020 can be accessed online

. 3

The undersigned has reviewed the requested hourly rates for petitioners ’ counsel at Conway, Homer, P.C. (the billing records indicate that the majority of attorney work was performed by Ms. Meredith Daniels , with supporting work done by Mr. Ronald Homer, Mr. Joseph Pepper, Ms. Lauren Faga, and Mr. Patrick Kelly). The rates req uested are consistent with what

these indiv iduals have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.

b . Reasonable Number of Hours

Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reaso nably 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 .3 d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v.

Eckerhar t

, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and upon review, the undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Acc ordingly, Petitioner s

are entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 28,565.20

.

c. Attorney 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 s request

a total of $ 1,505.81 in attorneys’ costs, comprised of acquiring m edical records, postage, and the Court’s filing fee. Fees App. at 30

- 32. Petitioner s ha ve provided adequate documentation of all these expenses and they appear reasonable for the work performed in this case. Petitioner s are therefore awarded the full amoun t of costs sought.

d. Petitioner’s Costs

Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner s state that t he y ha ve personally incurred costs of $ 470.00 in pursuit of this litigation for postage and guardianship costs . Petitioner s ha ve provided adequate documentation supporting these costs and they shall be fully reimbursed.

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the Vaccine Act , 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2012), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioners ’ request for fees and

costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner s and t h e i r counsel as follows:

3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914

. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCullo ch , 2015 WL 5634323.Attorneys’ Fees Requested $ 28,565.20

(Reduction to Fees)

- Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $ 28,565.20

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $ 1,505.81
(Reduction of Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 1,505.81

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $ 30,071.01

Petitioner’s Costs $ 470.00

Total Amount Awarded $ 30,541.01

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

1) a lump sum in the amount of $ 30,071.01 , representing reimbursement for

Petitioners ’ attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner s and their counsel, M r

. Ronald Homer; and

2) a lump sum in the amount of $ 470.00 , representing reimbursement for

Petitioners ’ costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner s

.

I n t he absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s/ Herbrina D. Sanders

Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master

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