# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-1332V Filed: November 1, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELE M. PHILLIPS,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

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

Michael Elio Ciccolini,, Cicco lini & Associates CO, LPA, Akron, OH, for petitioner. Douglas Ross, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On October 13, 2016, Michele M. Phil lips (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIR VA”), including bursitis and rotator cuff tear as a result of being admini stered an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 25, 2013. On June 6, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 22.)

On August 16, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 29.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,190.00 and attorneys’

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims'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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 costs in the amount of $848.15. ( Id. at 1.) In complianc e with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed stat ement indicating that petiti oner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 34). Thus, t he total amount requested is $18,038.15.

On August 16, 2017, respondent filed a re sponse to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 30.) Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vacci ne Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in the re solution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attor neys’ fees and costs are met in

this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special

Master exercise her discretion and determi ne a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees

and costs.” Id. at 3.

On September 12, 2017, petitioner filed a re ply. (ECF No. 31.) Petitioner notes that as respondent did not make any specif ic objection to her fee application, she requests that the undersigned approve her request. Id . at 1.

The undersigned notes that the attorneys and paralegals spent several hours of time discussing the case with each other in various interoffice co mmunications. In addition, three attorneys billed for preparing for a status conferenc e on November 22, 2016. The undersigned has previously found it reasonable to reduce fees paid to petitioner due to duplicative billing. See Ericzon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Ms tr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced CHCC's overall fee award by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing). The undersigned and other special masters have previously noted the inefficiency that results when multiple attorneys work on one case and have reduced fees accordingly. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,, 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (Fed. Cl. 2009); see also Austin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 10–362V, 2013 WL 659574, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. J an 31, 2013) (reducing attorneys' fees due to “excessive interoffice communications”). Generally spea king, having multiple attorneys work on a file is ineffective and inefficient. However, gi ven that this is petitioner’s counsel’s first case in the Vaccine Program, a certain amount of interoffice communication is unavoidable. Thus, the undersig ned will not reduce the fee award in this case. Should petitioner’s counsel continue to practice in the Vaccine Progr am, it should be noted that similar duplicative entries and time billed fo r interoffice communications may not be compensated.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost s. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned

GRANTS petitioner’s motion for atto rneys’ fees and costs.3 Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $18,038.15

, 3 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel

Michael L. Ciccolini.

The clerk of the court shall ent er judgment in accordance herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

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 co sts” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from char ging 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 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.