# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1340V Filed: November 8, 2016
TO BE PUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KEVIN FINNEGAN, *

* Petitioner, * v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; * Appropriate Hourly Rate; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Rate for Travel; Special AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 6, 2015, Kevin Finnegan (“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 he sustained a left shoulder injury, later diagnosed as brachial neur itis, as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 6, 2015. Peti tion at 1-2. On August 18, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding $289, 861.09, in compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ joint stipulation. (E CF No. 28). Judgment entered on August 29, 2016. (ECF No. 30).

On September 27, 2016, petitioner filed an unopposed motion requesting $10,833.50 in attorneys’ fees and $948.64 in attorneys’ costs for a total amount of

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explan ation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of F ederal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment 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 $11,782.14. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Co sts (“Pet. Motion”) at ¶¶ 2-3, 7 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. 3 In petitioner’s motion, he states that respondent does not object to the overall amount being requested by petitioner “as

it is not an unreasonable amount to have been incurred for proceedings in this case to

date.” Id. at ¶5, 1.

On October 27, 2016, the undersigned issued a reasoned decision in Solomon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 14-748V (Fed. Cl. S pec. Mstr. Oct. 27, 2016), addressing the issue of the appropriate hourly rate for pe titioner’s attorney, Amber Wilson. The undersigned conclu ded that the appropriate hourly rate for Ms. Wilson’s work performed in 2014-15 is $225 and in 2016 is $275. The undersigned also addressed the appropriate hourly rate for atto rney travel time, which the undersigned
held should be billed at one-half of the normal hourly billing rate.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
motion for fees. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the num ber of hours requested or the amount requested in costs. Ho wever, consistent with Solomon

, supra , the undersigned reduces the award to reflect the appropriate hourly billing rate for Ms. Wilson and a rate
reduction for travel time.

Petitioner billed 7.5 hours of time for work performed by Ms. Wilson in 2015 at a rate of $295. Consistent with Solomon , undersigned finds that an appropriate rate for Ms. Wilson’s work in 2015 is $225. Thus, pe titioner’s award is reduced by the resulting difference, $525 . Petitioner billed 8.9 hours at a ra te of $301 for work performed in 2016. Again, consistent with Solomon , undersigned finds that an appropriate rate for Ms. Wilson’s work in 2016 is $275. Thus, pe titioner’s award is further reduced by the resulting difference, $231.40

.

The undersigned has also determined that petitioner shall be paid for Ms. Wilson’s time spent traveling at one-half of her normal hourly billing rate. Petitioner billed for 2 hours of travel by Ms. Wilson in 2016. Thus, petitioner’s award is further reduced by $275 to reflect the reduction in hourly rate from $275 to $137.50. The total

amount deducted from the amo unt of attorneys’ fees requested by petitioner is $1,031.40

.

The amount of attorneys’ costs requested by petitioner is $948.64. Although petitioner failed to produce documentati on of one expense, a $14.79 charge for a payment to Worldwide Express for a UPS deliv ery of the stipulati on to the Department of Justice, the undersigned finds the undocumented amount to be reasonable and

3 In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating he incurred no out-ofpocket expenses. See Exhibit 14, filed as an Attachment to Pet. Motion. Additionally, in accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel indicated in th e motion for attorneys’ fees and costs that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. See Pet. Motion at ¶ 3.3 related to the proceedings in this case. Thus, petitioner is awarded the full amount of costs claimed, $ 948.64

.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned reduces the amount requested by petitioner and awards $1,031.40 in attorneys’ fees, and awards the full
amount claimed for costs of $948.64, for a total award of $10,750.74.

The undersigned awards a total award of $10,750.74 4 payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Amber Wilson.

The clerk of the court shall ent er judgment in accordance herewith. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

4 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).

5 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.