# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-0942V Filed: November 15, 2016
TO BE PUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LEIGHA ROMIG, *

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

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio, Christopher & Toal e, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Michael Patrick Milmoe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On August 28, 2015, Leigha Romig (“petitione r”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Com pensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et

seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she received a Tetanus-Diphtheriaacellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on A ugust 2, 2014, and thereafter suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administ ration (“SIRVA”). Peti tion at 1, 3. On March 21, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding $82,000.00, in compensation to petitioner bas ed on respondent’s proffer to which petitioner agreed. (ECF No. 24). Judgment entered on March 25, 2016. (ECF No. 26).

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 On September 21, 2016, petitioner f iled a motion requesting $16,006.00, in attorneys’ fees and $804.65, in attorneys’ costs for a total am ount of $16,810.65 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees an d Costs (“Pet. Motion”) at ¶¶ 2- 3 (ECF No. 30). Petitioner in curred no out-of-pocket expenses. 3 Thus, petitioner seeks
a total award in the am ount of $16,810.65.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned reduces this amount and
awards $14,642.30, in attorneys’ fees and $804.65, in attorneys’ costs for a total award
of $ 15,446.95 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

I. Procedural History

Petitioner filed her petition and medi cal records on August 28, 2015. See Exhibits 1-6 (ECF No. 3). Approximately two weeks later, she filed her affidavit and statement of completion. See Exhibit 7; Statement of Comp letion (ECF Nos. 9-10). An

initial status conference wa s held on October 22, 2015.

During the call, respondent’s counsel in dicated that respondent was likely to concede the case but asked for updated reco rds to establish petitioner’s current condition and future prognosis. See Order, issued Oct. 22, 2015 (ECF No. 13). Petitioner filed her updated reco rds on November 5, 2015. See Exhibits 8-10 (ECF No. 14). Approximately three weeks later, respondent filed her Rule 4 report. (ECF No. 15). A Ruling on Entitlement, finding compensati on appropriate in the case, was issued on December 1, 2015. (ECF No. 16).

Over the next three to four months, the parties informally discussed the appropriate amount of damages in this case. A proffer was filed on March 21, 2016. (ECF No. 22). The same day, petitioner filed a notice indicting she accepted respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 23). The undersigned awarded compensation in the amount proposed in the proffer, $82,000.00. (ECF No. 24). Judgment entered on March 25, 2016. (ECF No. 26).

Petitioner filed his motion for attorne ys’ fees and costs on September 21, 2016. (ECF No. 30). Respondent filed her res ponse approximately three weeks later. See Respondent’s Response to Pet. Motion (“Res. Response”), filed Oct. 11, 2016 (ECF No. 31). Respondent’s response contains st andard language that she has included in numerous vaccine cases since early February 2016, arguing that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any ro le for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that she “is satisfied the statutory requirement s for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent further “asserts

that a reasonable amount for f ees and costs in the present case would fall between

3 In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner f iled a signed statement indicating she incurred out-ofpocket expenses in the amount of $588.76. See Exhibit 13, filed as an Attachment to Pet. Motion. Additionally, in accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel indicated in the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs that petiti oner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. See Pet. Motion at ¶ 4.3 $12,000.00 to $14,000.00” but provides little basis or expl anation for how she arrived at this proposed range. Id. at 3.

On October 20, 2016, petiti oner filed a reply, dis agreeing with respondent’s assertion that she has no role in the resolution of attorneys’ fees and costs and criticizing the range of fees and costs proposed by respondent as meaningless. (ECF No. 58). Petitioner contends that “[t]he Re spondent’s position has caused the Court to occasionally, sua sponte , conduct its own inquiry into petitioners’ motions for fees and costs [which] puts the Court in the problematic position of serving as inquisitor as well

as the finder of fact.” Id. at 2. Petitioner argues that “this scenario can deny petitioners the opportunity to address specific issues wit h the requested fees and costs . . . [u]nless the Court requests clarification from pet itioner before issuing a decision.” Id.

The matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. Legal Standard for Determini ng the Amount of Fees and Costs

Since petitioner was awarded compensation for her injury , she is entitled to an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15( e)(1) (emphasis added). As the Federal Circuit noted, attorneys’ fees and co sts were “not expected to be high” due to the “no-fault, non-adversarial system” set forth in the Vaccine Act. Saxton ex rel. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 3 F.3d 1517, 1520 (Fed. Cir . 1993) (quoting H.R. R EP

. N O . 99-908, at 36 reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6377). Reasonable attorneys’ fees are calculated by multip lying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours expended on litigation, the lodestar approach. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)); Saxton , 3 F.3d at 1521.

A petitioner’s counsel in the Vaccine Progr am is paid the forum rate unless the bulk of the work is performed in a locale ot her than the forum (District of Columbia) and the local rate is very signific antly lower than the forum rate. Avera , 515 F.3d at 1349. If these two requirements are met, the Davis exception applies, and that petitioner’s counsel is paid according to the local rate. Id. ; see Davis County Solid Waste Management and Energy Recovery Specia l Service District v. United States Environmental Protection Agency , 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Although not explicitly stated in the statut e, the requirement t hat only reasonable amounts be awarded applies to co sts as well as fees. See Perriera v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs. , 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d , 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reasonable expert costs are calculated usin g the same lodestar method as is used when calculating attorneys’ fees. Masias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 99- 697V, 2009 WL 1838979, at *37 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 12, 2009).

Special masters have “wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.” Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (Fed. Cl. 1991). They are entitled to rely on their prior experience and, based on4 experience and judgment, may reduce the number of hours to an amount reasonable for the work performed. Saxton , 3 F.3d at 1521. A line-by- line evaluation of the billing records is not required. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (Fed. Cl. 1991) aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed.Cir.1993) (per curiam).

The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson , 24 Cl. Ct. at 484. She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.”

Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should ma ke a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are ex cessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is ob ligated to exclude su ch hours from his fee

submission.” Hensley v. Eckhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983).

III. Appropriate Amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

A. Appropriate Hourly Rates

Petitioner seeks attorneys’ fees in t he amount of $16,006.00 which reflects the following hourly rates: $341 for work perfo rmed in 2015, and $349 for work performed in 2016 by petitioner’s counsel, Isaiah Kalin owski, $295 for work performed in 2015 by Danielle Strait, another attorney at Mr. Kalinowski’s firm, $300 for work performed in 2015 by Diana Sedar, an attorney at the Saraso ta office of Mr. Kalinowski’s firm, and $95 to $145 for work performed by various par alegals at petitioner’s counsel’s firm, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA (“the Maglio firm”). Exhibit 11 at 1-15, filed as an

Attachment to Pet. Motion.

To support the hourly rates sought, petit ioner has filed numerous documents, including declarations from Mr. Kalinowski and Altom Magl io, the managing partner at
his firm. See Exhibits 14-19, filed as Atta chments to Pet. Motion.

1. Hourly Rate for Petitione r’s Counsel, Isaiah Kalinowski

According to Mr. Kalinowski’s declaration, he was admitted to practice in New York on October 31, 2005. Exhibit 14 at ¶ 2. Following roughly eighteen months at a litigation firm specializing in areas other th an vaccine law, he worked as a law clerk in the Office of Special Masters, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, for al most four years. Id. at ¶ 6. After leaving the court in late 2010, he joined the Maglio firm as the first full-time employee of the Washington, DC office. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. His practice consists primarily of Vaccine Program cases, and he has present ed CLE-accredited progr ams at the three most recent judicial conferences of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10. As explained in Mr. Maglio’s declaration, Mr. Kalinowski’s rates were set by the law firm’s fees committee in light of the court’s recent decision in McCulloch

. 4 Exhibit 15 at ¶ 13-14.

4 McCulloch v. HHS , No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). Although the parties in McCulloch did not seek review, much of the reasoning of the McCulloch decision was later5 In the McCulloch case, Special Master Gowen exhaustively examined the question of appropriate hourly forum rate s in the Vaccine Program following the breakdown of respondent’s long standing agreement with petitioner’s counsel in that

case. See McCulloch , 2015 WL 5634323, at *3-4 (for background information regarding these events). Special Ma ster Gowen determined the appropriate rates for the attorneys at that firm but also establis hed tiered ranges of appropriate forum rates based on years of legal experience. The reasoning and hourly rates set in McCulloch have since been widely followed.

After discussing the potential approaches to setting a forum rate and reviewing
cases and material from both within and with out the Vaccine Program, Special Master

Gowen concluded in McCulloch that the following factors should be considered when determining the appropriate hourly rate: (1) the prevailing rate for comparable legal work in Washington, DC; (2) the prevailing rate for cases in the Vaccine Program; (3) the experience of the attorney(s) in question wit hin the Vaccine Progr am; (4) the overall legal experience of the attorney (s); (5) the quality of work performed by the attorney(s) in vaccine cases; and (6) the reputation of the attorney(s) in the legal community and community at large. McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *17. He calculated the following ranges for reasonable forum rates in Vaccine Program cases:

$350 to $425 per hour for attorneys with 20 or more years of experience; $300 to $375 per hour for attorneys with 11 to 19 years of experience; $275 to $350 per hour for attorneys with ei ght to ten years of experience; $225 to $300 per hour for attorneys with four to seven years of experience; and $150 to $225 per hour for attorneys with le ss than four years of experience.

Id. at *19. Special Master Gowen noted that “[t]he highe r end of the range should be awarded to those with significant Vaccine Progr am experience who perform high quality legal work in vaccine cases.” Id . He added that an attorney’s level of experience may be increased for legal work performed during la w school such as an internship in the Vaccine Program or prior judicial clerkship, especially for attorneys with experience of less than four years. Id. The undersigned finds the McCulloch decision, which is extensively reasoned, to be highly persuasiv e and adopts its reasoning, as well as the above ranges, for the instant analysis.

Since Mr. Kalinowski is located in the forum, Washington, DC, he is unquestionably entitled to forum rates. Thus, it is only necessary to determine his years of experience and hourly rate within the appropriate range considering the factors described by Special Master Gowen. Mr. Kalinowski had ten year s of experience in 2015 and did not reach the 11 year level unt il 2016. Although the rate requested by petitioner, $341 for years 2015, is within the range proposed in McCulloch for an attorney with eight to ten years, $275 to $350 per hour, the undersigned finds $325 is

examined approvingly in Garrison v. HHS , No. 14-762V, --- Fed. Cl. ---, 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1274, (Fed. Cl. Aug. 17, 2016).6 an appropriate hourly rate for Mr. Kalinowsk i’s work in this year. The undersigned recently awarded this rate for work per formed by Mr. Kalinow ski in 2014-15 in a

reasoned decision in McGrath v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 15-275V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 27, 2016). As noted in that decision, the hourly rate of $325 is consistent with the rate paid in McCulloch for work performed by several associates with only two to three years less experience than Mr. Kalinowski. 5 Furthermore, an
examination of fee decisions for other attorn eys being paid at forum rates reveals that a rate of $325 for work performed in 2015 is appropriate given the rates awarded attorneys with greater legal experience, incl uding substantial experience in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g.

, Al-Uffi v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 6181669, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015) (awarding an hourly rate of $350 for Andrew Downing, an attorney with 19 years of legal experience).

Two of my colleagues recently addressed t he issue of Mr. Kalinowski’s rate for work performed 2012-14. See Scharfenberger v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 11-221V, 2015 WL 3526559 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 15, 2015), aff’d 124 Fed. Cl. 224 (2015); O’Neill v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 08-243V, 2015 WL 2399211 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). In Scharfenberger , the special master determined that attorneys’ fees should be awarded bas ed upon an hourly rate of $305 for Mr. Kalinowski’s work performed in 2014. 2015 WL 3526559, at *10. In O’Neill , the special master determined that it was appropriate to award a slightly higher rate of $325 per hour for work performed by Mr. Kalinowski in 2012-13. 2015 WL 2399211, at *7. The undersigned agrees that Mr. Kalinowski’s 20 15 work should be compensated at a rate of $325 per hour which falls in the upper half of the applicable McCulloch range.

For work performed in 2016 by Mr. Kalinowsk i, petitioner requests an hourly rate of $349. In 2016, Mr. Kalinowsk i moved into the next higher McCulloch range, 11 to 19 years of experience. 6 The McCulloch range for this level of experience is $300 to $375.

5 Specifically, the following rates were awarded in the McCulloch decision:

Kevin Conway (45 years legal experienc e, 26 years vaccine experience) $415

Ronald Homer (24 years legal experienc e, 22 years vaccine experience) $400

Sylvia Chin-Caplan (30 years legal expe rience, 22 years vaccine experience) $400
Christine Ciampolillo (6 years vaccine experience) $300
Amy Schwader (7 years vaccine experience) $285
Joseph Pepper (6 years legal experience, 5 years vaccine experience) $290
Meredith Daniels (5 years vaccine experience) $280

Law Clerks $145
Paralegals $135

McCulloch , 2015 WL 5634323, at *19-21.

6 Although Mr. Kalinowski reached this 11 year mark on October 31, 2016, the undersigned declines to penalize him for providing more accurate information than is often provided in these cases, i.e. the exact date of his licensure rather than simply the year. Exhibit 14 at ¶ 2. Goi ng by the year of his licensure, Mr. Kalinowski is considered as being in the 11 to 19 year range for work performed in 2016.7 Thus, the rate requested for Mr. Kalinowsk i’s work in 2016 is within the appropriate

McCulloch range, though in the upper half of this r ange. Again, Mr. Kalinowski’s time as a law clerk and extensive experience in t he Vaccine Program warrant a higher hourly rate within his corresponding McCulloch range. The undersigned finds the requested rate to be appropriate.

In support of the requested hourly rates, petitioner has filed declarations from numerous attorneys and one paralegal in other law firms, some of which have been filed in other cases, an order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in a Florida civil case, and expert reports regarding attor neys’ fees and curricula vitae from William Murphy and Steven Tasher, filed previously in Scharfenberger and O’Neill , respectively. See

Exhibits 37-39. None of these individual s appear to have experience in the Vaccine Program. Like the special master in Scharfenberger , the undersigned does not find this evidence particularly helpful. See Scharfenberger, 2015 WL 3526559, at *8.

Considering Mr. Kalinowski’s skill, exper ience, quality of work, and reputation and the undersigned’s experience ev aluating fee applications in Vaccine Act cases, the undersigned finds that the appropriate hourly rate for Mr. Kalinowsk i’s work performed in 2015 is $325 and in 2016 is $349.

2. Hourly Rate for Other A ttorneys at the Maglio Firm

The billing records show that .4 hours of attorney work was performed by two other attorneys at the Maglio firm. See Exhibit 11 at 1, 5 ( entries dated 11/3/14 and 7/27/15). Diana Sedar, an attorney in the firm’ s Sarasota office billed .2 hours of work performed in 2014 at an hourly rate of $300. This hourly rate has been widely accepted as reasonable for any of the attorneys in t he main office of the Maglio firm, and the undersigned has awarded this rate for Ms. Sedar ’s work in 2014 in other SPU cases, for example, Cirillo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 15-801V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 29, 2016). Similarly, the rate reques ted for Ms. Strait’s work performed in 2015

was the same rate awarded in O’Neill . 2015 WL 2399211. The undersigned just awarded this rate for work performed by Ms. Strait in a reasoned decision in another SPU case, Steffens v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 15-59V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 7, 2016). The undersigned finds both these ra tes to be reasonable.

3. Discounted Rate for Hours Spent Traveling

Petitioner seeks payment fo r travel time expended by Mr. Kalinowski to visit petitioner. See Exhibit 11 at 8. In his declarati on, Mr. Maglio emphasizes the firm’s policy of visiting petitioners in all cases, including conti ngency cases as well as vaccine cases. Exhibit 15 at ¶ 9. According to the billing records, Mr. Kalinowski spent 6.6 hours driving to and from his visit with petitioner. See Exhibit 11 at 8 (1 st and 3 rd entries dated 10/9/15). The undersigned finds this amount of time to be appropriate. However, petitioner seeks Mr. Kalinowski’s full hourly rate for his travel time. The undersigned
finds that he should be awarded one-half of his normal rate for these hours.8 In the Vaccine Program, special masters traditionally have compensated time spent traveling when no other work was being performed at one-half an attorney’s hourly rate. See Hocraffer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 99-533V, 2011 WL 3705153, at *24 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 25, 2011); Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health &

Human Servs. , No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 27, 2009); English v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 01-61V, 2006 WL 3419805, at *12-13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2006). However, special masters should not use this rule as standard practice but rather “[e]ach case should be assessed on its own

merits.” Gruber v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs ., 91 Fed. Cl. 773, 791 (2010). “Even an automatic 50% award may be too hi gh for an undocumented claim, given the possibility that an attorney may use the travel time to work on another matter or not to work at all while traveling.” Id.

The billing records in this case do not indicate that Mr. Ka linowski performed any work during the time he was trav eling. In fact, the activity performed, driving a car, is not the type to allow for simult aneously performed substantive work. See e.g.

, Rodriguez , 2009 WL 2568468, at *21 (compensating at one-half the attorney’s rate when traveling by car). Since all travel o ccurred in 2015, petitioner will be awarded fees at a rate of $162.50 for this time, represent ing one-half of Mr. Kalinowski’s 2015 rate, already reduced to $325.

4. Paralegal Rates

As indicated in Mr. Maglio’s declara tion, the paralegals who are Florida Registered Paralegals bill at a rate of $135 per hour, those who do not have this designation bill at a rate of $95 to $105, and paralegals working in the Washington, DC office bill at a rate of $145 per hour. Exhibi t 15 at ¶¶ 22-27. In th is case, the paralegal work was billed at all of these rates, depending upon the particular paralegal performing

the work.

In the same decisions cited above, Scharfenberger and O’Neill , my colleagues also addressed the issue of paralega l rates for the Maglio firm. See Scharfenberger

, 2015 WL 3526559, aff’d 124 Fed. Cl. 224 (2015); O’Neill , 2015 WL 2399211. The special master in Scharfenberger found the rates up to and including $125 to be appropriate but reduced all higher rates to that maximum amount. 2015 WL 3526559, at *10. The special master in O’Neill accepted all rates as reasonable, but the highest rate billed in that case was $135 per hour. 2015 WL 2399211, at *14.

The undersigned finds that the rates billed fo r paralegal work in this case are reasonable and will compensate pet itioner at those rates.9 B. Appropriate Amount of Costs

Petitioner seeks payment for costs totaling $804.65. See Exhibit 12, filed as an

Attachment to Pet. Motion. Petitioner has included the receipts or other documentation for the majority but not all of these costs. See id. at 2-21.

“It is petitioners’ burden to subs tantiate costs expended with supporting documentation such as receipts, in voices, canceled checks, etc.” Ceballos v. Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs. , No. 99-97V, 2004 WL 784910, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 25, 2004). Special masters, howev er, have awarded compensation for costs

without documentation when “satisfied that t he costs incurred were related to the proceedings . . . and were reasonable.” Erickson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, No. 96-361V, 1999 WL 1268149, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 1999); see also
Ceballos , 2004 WL 784910, at *13; English v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 01- 61V, 2006 WL 3419805, at *14-15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2006).

In this case, petitioner has failed to prov ide receipts for two items, involving the cost of shipping and postage. See Exhibit 12 at 1 (entri es dated 9/23/15 and 5/5/16).

The total cost for these two items is $26.84.

The undersigned finds the undocumented amounts in this case to be reasonable and related to the proceedings in this case . Petitioner is awarded the full amount of costs requested.

C. Amount Deducted

Petitioner billed 18.2 hours of time for wo rk performed in 2015 at a rate of $341 by Mr. Kalinowski. The undersigned has de termined that an appropriate rate for Mr. Kalinowski’s work in 2015 is $325. T hus, petitioner’s award is reduced by $291.20 to
reflect the reduction in the 2015 rate.

The undersigned also has determined that petitioner shall be paid for Mr. Kalinowski’s time spent trav eling at one-half of his norma l hourly rate. The undersigned
calculates 6.6 hours of travel time for Mr. Ka linowski. Thus, petitioner’s award is further reduced by $1,072.50 to reflect the reduction in hourly rate from $325 to $162.50. The

total amount deducted from the amount of attorneys’ fees requested by petitioner is $1,363.70.

The specific reductions and amounts paid are as follows:10 Attorneys’ Fees:

Category of

Hours Hours Sought Hours

Paid Rate Sought Rate

Paid Amount

Deducted Amount

Paid 2015 Work by Mr. Kalinowski 18.2 18.2 $341 $325 $291.20 $5,915 2016 Work by Mr. Kalinowski 11.3 11.3 $349 $349 $0 $3,943.70

Further Deduction

for Travel Time 6.6 Included

in 18.2

above $341 but already

reduced to $325 $162.50 $1,072.50 Already

included in $11,732.50

above 2015 Work by

Diana Sedar .2 .2 $300 $300 $0 $60 2015 Work by Danielle Strait .2 .2 $295 $295 $0 $59

Paralegal Work $95

to $145 $95

to $145 $0 $4,664.60

Total for Fees $1,363.70 $14,642.30

Attorneys’ Costs: Description Amount

Billed Amount of Receipt Amount

Deducted Amount Paid

Documented Costs $777. 81 $777.81 $0.00 $777.81
Postage and Document Access $26.84 ---- $0.00 $26.84

Total for Costs $0.00 $804.65

IV. Conclusion

The undersigned has determined that an appr opriate hourly rate for petitioner’s counsel in this case, Mr. Kalinowski of Mag lio, Christopher & Toale, PA is $325 for work performed in 2015 and $349 for work perform ed in 2016. Additionally, the undersigned finds that counsel should be paid one-half of his normal rate for time spent traveling. No

other deduction is warranted.11 The undersigned awards $14,642.30 in attorneys’ fees and $804.65 in attorneys’

costs for a total award of $15,446.95 7 payable jointly to peti tioner and petitioner’s counsel, Isaiah Kalinowski.

The clerk of the court shall ent er judgment in accordance herewith. 8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

7 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).

8 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.