# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: February 2 3 , 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

CHIRAG PALSANA

, * No. 1 7

- 214 V

* Special Master Horner Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

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

* Respondent. *

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

Diana L. Stadelnikas

, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL

, for Petitioner.

Heather L. Pearlman , United States Department of Justice, Washington, D

. C

. , for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On February 14, 2017

, Chirag Palsana (“ petitioner ”), filed a claim under the National

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10

- 34 (2012), 2 alleging that he suffered transverse myelitis as a result of his receipt of an influenza vaccination on October 12, 2015 . (ECF No. 1.) On October 16 , 2020, the parties filed a stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day . (ECF No. 5 3 ).

On October 28 , 2020

, p etitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fee s and costs. ( ECF No.

5 7 ) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner request s total attorneys’ fees and c ost s in the amount of $ 86,545.40 (representi ng $ 60,551.90 in fees and $ 25,993.50 in costs) . Fees App

. at 1

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner states that he has not personally incurred any costs related to this litigation.

Id. at 2. Respondent responded to the motion on October 3 0 , 2020 , indicating that “ Respondent is

1 I intend 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 has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits
within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this un published ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 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 Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S .C. § 300aa (2012).2

satisfied the statutory requireme nts for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case. ” Resp. at 2 (ECF No. 58 ). Petitioner filed a reply on the same day, reiterating his belief that the requested attorneys’ fees and costs were reasonable. (ECF No. 59 ).

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reason able attorneys ’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys ’ fees and

costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec ’ y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 134 7 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two

- step process. Id. at 1347

- 48. First, a court determines an “initial estimate

. . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson , 46 5 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

.

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 spec ial master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys ’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys ’ fees must include contemporaneous 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). Such applications , however,

should not incl ude hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton , 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the

relevant commu nity. See Blum , 465 U.S. at 89 4

- 95

. 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. P etitioner s bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte , without providing petitioners notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (Fed. Cl. 2009). When determining the relevant fee reduction, special masters need not engage in

a line

- by

- line analysis of petitioners’ fee application. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs. , 102 Fed. Cl. 719 , 729 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Instead, they may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991), rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant

part , 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests . . . Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use th eir prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton

, 3 F.3d at 1521.

a. Hourly Rates3

The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs. , No. 09

- 293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied , 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys ’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee

Schedules for 2015

– 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 , and 2020 can be accessed online. 3

Petit ioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel: for Ms. Diana
Stadelnikas, $396.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $415.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, and $440.00 per hour for work performed in 2020 ; and for Ms. Anne Toale, $300.00 per hour for work performed in 2016, $378.00 per hour for work performed in 20 17, and $402.00 per hour for work performed in 2018 . Fees App. Ex. 1 at 26 . These rates are consistent with what Ms.

Stadelnikas and Ms. Toale h a ve previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and I find them to be reasonable for work performed in the instant case as well.

b. Hours E xpended

Attorneys ’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Aver

a , 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. While attorneys may be compensated for non

- attorney

- level work, the rate must be comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 08

– 243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28 , 2015). Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g.

, McCulloch , 2015 WL 5634323, at *26.

Upon review, the overall number of hours billed appears to be reasonable. I have reviewed

the billing entries and find that they adequately describe the work done on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. I do not find any of the entries to be objectionable, nor has respondent identified any as such. Petitioner is therefore awarded fin al attorneys’ fees of $ 60,551.90

.

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). Petitioner request s a total of $ 25,993.50 in attorneys’ costs , comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, the Court’s filing fee, travel costs associated with meeting petitioner, and work performed by petitioner’s life care planner and economic expert

. Fees App. at Ex. 2 at 1

- 2

. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation of the requested costs and they appear to be reasonable in my experience. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought.

II. Conclusion

3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914

.4

Based on all the above, I find that p etitioner is entitled to the following award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $ 60,551.90
(Reduction to Fees )

- Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $ 60,551.90

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $ 25,993.50
(Reduction of Costs)

- Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $ 25,993.50

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $ 86,545.40

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

- 15(e) (2012), I have rev iewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that p etitioner ’s request f or fees and costs is

reasonable. I find it reasonable to compensate petitioner and h is counsel as follows :

1) a lump sum in the amount of $ 86,545.40 , representing reimbursement for p etitioner ’ s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to p etitioner and h is attorney,

Ms. Diana Stadelnikas

.

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

C ourt shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Daniel T. Horner

Daniel T. Horner Special Master

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek

review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).