# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20

- 1112 V (not to be published)

SHANEL MAYO

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: August 26, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Leigh Finfer

, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for P etitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

On September 1, 2020, Shanel Mayo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Table injury

– a Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration as a result of an influenza vaccination received on September 26, 2019. ( Petition at 1 )

. On April 28

, 2022

, a decision was issued awarding compensation to P etitioner based on the parties’ stipulation

. (ECF No. 26 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). This means the D ecision 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.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated July 11 , 2022 (ECF No. 3 1 ) , requesting a total award of $ 9,678.23 (representing $ 9,160.00 in fees and $ 518.23 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9

, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner i ncurred no out

- of

- pocket expenses. ( Id. at 2 )

. Respondent
reacted to the motion on July 12 , 2022, indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case

, but deferring
resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion

. (ECF No. 3 2 )

. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’s request s and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate

, for the reason listed below.

ANALYSIS

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

. Section 15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the

servic e, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs. , 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316

- 18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v.
S ec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v.
Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reas onable for
the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte , apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & H uman Servs. , 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line

- by

- line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs. , 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

The p etitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended , the rates charged, and the expenses incu rred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sough t] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethica lly is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley

, 461 U.S. at 434.3 ATTORNEY FEES

Petitioner requests the following rates for attorney Leigh Fin f er and the attorneys
of Muller Brazil as follows:

2019 2020 2021 2022 Leigh Finfer $185 $200 $225 $250

Max Muller $325 $350 X X Laura Levenberg X X $350 X

The rates requested for M r s. Finfer and Mr. Muller are reasonable

, and consistent with what has previously been awarded and shall therefore be awarded herein. Ms. Levenberg , however, was awarded the rate of $275 per hour for time billed in 202 1

, less than what is being requested herein. See Winkle v. Sec’y of Health & Hu man Servs., No.
20

- 0485V . Accordingly, I reduce Ms. Levenberg’s rate to $275 per hour for time billed in

2021 , consistent with what has been previously awarded

. This results in a reduction of $ 7. 5 0

. 3

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner requests $ 518.23 in overall costs. (ECF No. 3 1 at 2). This amount is comprised of obtaining medical records, shipping costs and reports and the Court’s filing fee. I have reviewed all of the requested costs and find them to be reasonable and shall

award them in full.

CONCLUS ION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney ’ s fees and costs

. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney ’ s fees and costs. I
award a total of $ 9,670.73 (representing $ 9,152.50 in fees and $ 518.23 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel

. In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this D ec ision. 4

3 This amount consists of ($ 350

- $ 27 5 = $ 7 5 x 0.10 hrs = $ 7. 5 0 )

.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master