# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 9

- 201 V

Filed: June 15, 2021

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

DOUGLAS PORTER

, * UNPUBLISHED

* Petitioner, *

*

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Paul R. Brazil

, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for p etitioner

. Camille M. Collett

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

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Roth , Special Master:

O n February 5, 2019

, Douglas Porter ( “ p etitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner allege d that he suffered chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy after receiving a n influenza v accination on October 7 , 2017

. See

Petition , ECF No. 1

. On January 21, 2021 , the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on January 22, 2021 . ECF No. 33

.

On March 23, 2021

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

No. 39 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $ 11,196.77, representing $ 10,366.70 in attorneys’ fees and $ 830.07 in costs

. Fees App

. at 2

.

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 privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact su ch 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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 Ac t 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

Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated he has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of this litigation. Id. Respondent respon ded to the motion on April 9, 2021 , 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

, ECF No. 40

. 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 pur suant to a stipulation, 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 attorneys' fees” and “other costs” under the Vacci ne 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 reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. at 1347

– 48 (quot ing

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 substantial discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request

sua sponte , apart from objecti ons 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

ap plication 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 is 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, 138 4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Avera , 515 F. 3d at 1349). 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 si gnificant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum3

hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Servs. , 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Specia l 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

McCulloc h 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. 3

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of h is counsel, Mr. Paul Brazil : $3 17 .00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $ 350 .00 per hour for work performed in 20 20 , and $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2021 . These rates are consistent with what M r. Brazil has previously been awarded for h is 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 expende d 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 excessive 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 wh at 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 t hem. 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, 2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). 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, 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.” Saxton , 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special masters ma y reduce the number of hours 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).

3 The 2015

- 2020 Fee Schedules can be accessed at http://www.c ofc.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. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).4

T he overall h ours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has reviewed the billing entries and finds that the billing entries adequately describe the work done on

the case and the amount of time spent on that work. Non e of the entries appear objectionable, nor has respondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a final award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 10,366.70

.

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 $ 830.07 in costs for acquiring medical records, postage

, and the Court’s filing fee

. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the requested costs and all appear reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs of $ 830.07

.

III. Conclusion

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

GRANTED

. The undersigned hereby awards a lump sum of $ 11,196.77

, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Mr. Paul Brazil , Esq.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court shall en ter judgment in accordance herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

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).