# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RONALD PATRICK, *

* No. 17

- 922 V Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: November 1 3 , 2018

*

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

* Respondent. *

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

Diana L. Stadelnikas

, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL

, for Petitioner; Daniel A. Principato , U nited S tates Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUB LISHED DECISION AWARDING

ATTORNEY S ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

1 The undersigned intends to post this Decision on the United States Court of

Federal Claims' website. This means the ruling will be availabl e to anyone with

access to the i nternet. 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 inv asion of privacy. 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the actio n in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website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

Ronald Patr ick brought a successful petition for compensation under the

National Childhood Vaccine Compensation Program. H e now sees an award f or attorneys’ fees and costs. H e is awarded $ 27,008.88

.

* * *

Represented by Ms. Diana Stadelnikas , Mr

. Patrick filed his petition for compensation on July 10, 2017. Mr. Patrick alleged that the influenza vaccine that

he received on September 1, 2015 , which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), caused him to suffer Guillain

- Barré syndrome

. The parties were able to informally resolve the case, agreeing to a joint stipulation on award of compensation that was then adopted. Decision , issued July 27 , 2018

.

On September 17 , 2018 , petitioner moved unopposed for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting a total of $27,066.38 (representing $25,572.80

i n attorneys’ fees and $1,493.58 in attorneys’ costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ( “Fees App.”) at 1

- 2 . Pu rsuant to Genera l Order No. 9,

p etitioner warrants that he has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of this litigation

. Id. at 1.

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

* * *

Because M r. Patrick received compensation, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e). Thus, the quest ion

at bar is whether Mr. Patrick’s requested amount is reasonable.

The F ederal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs un der the Vaccine Act. This is a two

- step

process. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the number

of hours reasonably expended on the litigation t imes a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id.

at 1347

- 48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348.3

A. Reasona ble Hourly Rates

Mr. Patrick requests the following rates for his attorney , M s. Stadelnikas : $359 .00 per hour for work performed in 2016, $372 .00 per hour for work perfo rmed in 2017, and $396 .00 per hour for work p erformed in 2018. Fees App.

at 18

. Additionally, Petitioner requests compensation for another attorney, Mr. Altom Maglio, at $362.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, and several paral egals at rates ranging from $95

- $148 per h our for work performed from 2016

- 2018. Id.

The rates requeste d for Maglio firm attorneys are in line with what the undersigned and other special masters have consistently awarded them for their work in the Vaccine Program. See Lavayen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, No. 15

- 1247V, 2017 WL 4638659 (Fed. Cl. Spec. M str. Sept. 20, 2017); Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 17

- 791V, 2018 WL 5520260 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 25, 2018); Dighero v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 15

- 22V, 2018 WL 2224880 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 6, 2018).

The paralegal rates requested have previously been found r easonable and are in line with forum rates for paralegals in each respective year

. Accordingly, no adjust ment to the requested rates is necessary

.

B. Reasonable Number of Hours

The second factor in the lodestar formula is a reasonable number of hours. Reasonable hours are not excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. See Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Secretary did not dire ctly challenge any of the requested hours as

unreasonable.

In light of the Secretary’s lack of objection, the undersigned has reviewed the fee application for its reasonableness. See McIntosh v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs.

, 139 Fed. Cl. 238 (2018)

.

T o facilitate the process of evaluating the reasonableness of an attorney's activities, in November 2004, the Office of Special Masters issued revised Guidelines for attorneys. The Guidelines state “counsel are advised to maintain detailed contemporaneous r ecords of time and funds expended under the Program.” Office of Special Masters, Guidelines for Practice under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Rev. Nov. 2004) at § XIV. Detailed (or stated another way, non

- vague) contemporaneous records a re the petitioner's4

responsibility and allow the Office of Special Masters to determine the reasonableness of attorneys' fees requests. See Avgoustis v. Shinseki , 639 F.3d
1340, 1344

- 45 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that requiring entries which permit

effectiv e review of the fees is in accord with cases from the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court).

Upon review of the submitted billing statement, the undersigned finds the hours billed (103.3 ) to be reasonable with two exceptions for what appear to be duplicate entries. The first duplicate entry occurs on June 8, 2016, when paralegal Amanda Ramos billed two entries for “Prepare Authorization and draft letter requesting records from Stuart Eye Institu te and forward same. Update file accordingly[,]” each for 0.3 hours. Fees App. Ex. 19 at 2. The second instance occurs on October 11, 2017, when Ms. Ramos had one entry for “Review Order of Court authorizing issuance of subpoena to Select Specialty Hospita l

– Palm Beach” for 0.4 hours and one entry for “Review and analyze Court Order granting Petitioner’s Motion to Issue Subpoenas, update case deadlines” for 0.2 hours. Id. at 10. Given that the Court only issued one order in that time frame, on October 5, 2017, the second entry appears to be a duplicate. The Court will therefore deduct the duplicate entries from the award of attorneys’ fees, a reduction of $57.50. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,515.30.

C. Costs Inc urred by Maglio Christopher & Toale

The fees application also asks for re imburse ment in the amount of $ 1,493.58

i n for costs incurred by Maglio Christopher & Toale

. Fees App. at 1

. Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonab le. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992), aff’d , 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The undersigned has reviewed the requested costs and notes they are all for

routine expenses commonly incurred in Vaccine Program lit igation, such as the cost of medical records, postage , and the filing fee

. Fees App. Ex. 21 at 1

- 2. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation of all these costs, and they shall be

reimbursed in full.

Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded $1,493.58 in attorneys’ costs.5

D. Conclusion

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e). Accordingly, I award a total of $ 27,008.88 (representing $ 25,515.30 in attorneys’ fees and $ 1,493.58 in costs) as a lump su m in the form of a check jointly payable to p etitioner and his c ounsel, Ms. Diana Stadelnikas , Esq

.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this

decis ion. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.