# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: September 9 , 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

RICHARD WATTS and TIFFANI *

WATTS parents of R.W., a minor, *

*

Petitioner s
, * No. 1 9

- 1119 V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

* Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

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

Edward M. Kraus

, Law Offices of Chicago Kent

, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner s

. Kimberly S. Davey , United States Department of Justic e, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On August 1, 2019

, Richard and Tiffani Watts (“Petitioner s ”) , filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their minor

child R.W.

, 2 alleging that R.W. suffered from immune thrombocytopenia purpura as a result of

one or more of the DTaP, Hepatitis A , and influenza vaccin es he received on February 7, 2017

. Pet. at 1. On January 13, 2021

, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on the same day. (ECF No. 29).

On June 28, 2021

, P etitioner s filed an application for final attor neys ’ fees and costs. (“Fees

1 The undersigned intend s 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 s ha ve 14 days to identify and move to redact medic al 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 such material from public a ccess. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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 Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 35 01 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.

No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300a a

- 10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).2

App.”) (ECF No. 34) . Petitioner s request total attorneys ’ fees and c osts in the amount of $ 30,224.36

, represen ting $ 29,483.60 in attorneys ’ fees and $ 740.76 in attorney s ’ costs

. Fees App.

at 1

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner s represent that they have not incurred any personal costs related to this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on June 28, 2021

, stating

that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs

are met in this case” and r equesting that the undersigned “exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2 ( ECF No. 3 5)

. Petitioner s did not file a reply

.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the Special Master to award “reasonable

attorneys ' fees , and other costs.” § 300aa

– 15(e)(1)(A)

– (B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys ' fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, even if they are unsuccessful , they are eligible so long as the Specia l Master finds that the petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioners were awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, they are ent itled to an award of reasonable final attorneys’ fees and costs.

It is “well within the special master's discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. Saxton 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 reasonableness of both attorneys ' fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys ' fees must include contem poraneous 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. , 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316

– 18 (2008).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prev ailing market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984) . 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. The petitioner bears the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

a. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Petitioner s request the following rates of compensation for their attorney s: for Mr. Edward

M. Kraus

, $409 for time billed in 2018

, $418 for time billed in 2019

, $435 for time billed in 2020

, and $458.00 per hour for work performed in 2021 ; and for Ms. Amy Kraus

, $334 for time billed

in 2019

, $365 for time billed in 2020 , and $384.00 per hour for work performed in 2021

. These

rates ar e consistent with what counsel have previously been awarded for th e i r Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.

b. Reasonable Hours E xpended3

Attorneys ' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably 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.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well

- established that billing for administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States

, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Huma n Servs. , No. 02

- 1616V, 2018 WL 2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).

T he overall h ours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has reviewed the billing entries and finds that they adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable

, nor has

R espondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, Petitioners are awarded final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 29,483.60.

c. Attorneys ’ 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). Petitione r s request
a total of $ 740.76 in attorneys ’ cost s

. Fees App. at 1 4

. This amount is comprised of acquiring
medical records, postage, and the Court’s filing fee . Fees App. at 21

- 22. All of these costs are typical of Vaccine Program litigation and are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience

. Petitioner s are therefore awarded final attorneys’ costs of $ 740.76

.

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e) (2012), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that P etitione rs ’ request for fees and

costs is reasonable. T he undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate P etitioner s and t h e i r counsel as follows:

Attorneys ’ Fees Requested $ 29,483.60 (Reduction to Fees )

- Total Attorneys ’ Fees Awarded $ 29,483.60

Attorneys ’ Costs Requested $ 740.76 (Reduction to Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 740.76

Total Amount Awarded $ 30,224.36

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $ 30,224.36

, representing reimbursement for reasonable attorneys ’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to P etitioner s and their counsel of record, Mr. Edward M. Kraus

.4

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

court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler Special Master

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right t o seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).