Court Opinion

ID: 4469859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-07 17:01:44.173481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:12.490136
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                              OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                  Filed: October 19, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DONALD JACKSON,            *
                           *
     Petitioner,           *                           No. 17-1508V
                           *                           Special Master Oler
v.                         *
                           *                           Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH        *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,        *
                           *
            Respondent.    *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Shealene P. Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Althea W. Davis, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

        On October 13, 2017, Donald Jackson (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34
(2012). Petitioner alleged that he developed peripheral neuropathy and polyarthralgia as a result
of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination that he received on October 14, 2015. Pet., ECF No. 1, at 1.
On June 25, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his petition, and on the same
day the undersigned issued her Decision dismissing the petition for insufficient proof. Decision,
ECF No. 32.

         On August 19, 2019, Petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF

1
  The undersigned intends to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims'
website. This means the ruling 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this
definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished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. § 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.
No. 35 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
$10,717.63, representing $10,059.50 in attorneys’ fees and $658.13 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App.
at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that he has not personally incurred any
costs related to this case. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on August 30, 2019, deferring
to the undersigned’s discretion as to whether the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s
fees and costs are met and, if so, to determine a reasonable amount of fees and costs. Resp’t’s
Resp. at 2 (ECF No. 36). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

       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 Special 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, the undersigned does not doubt that the petition was filed
in good faith, and although the petition was eventually dismissed, the undersigned finds that there
was reasonable basis to file the petition. Respondent has also not challenged the reasonable basis
of the petitioner. Accordingly, a final award of fees and costs is appropriate.

        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 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).

        Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing 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 requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel: for Ms. Shealene
Mancuso, $225.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $233.00 per hour for work performed in
2018, and $250.00 per hour for work performed in 2019; for Mr. Max Muller, $300.00 per hour
for work performed in 2017; and for Mr. Paul Brazil, $325.00 per hour for work performed in
2019. Petitioner also requests paralegal rates from $125.00 per hour to $140.00 per hour,
depending on the year and the paralegal. The undersigned has reviewed the requested rates and
finds them to be consistent with what Muller Brazil, LLP attorneys and paralegals have previously

                                                  2
been awarded for their Vaccine Program work. Accordingly, the rates sought herein are
reasonable.

       b. Reasonable Hours Expended

         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 & Human Servs., No. 02-1616V, 2018 WL
2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).

        Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has
provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and, upon review, the
undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Respondent also did not
indicate that he finds any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is
entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,059.50.

       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 requests
a total of $658.13 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, and
the Court’s filing fee. Fees App. at 12. All of these costs are reasonable and have been supported
by adequate documentation. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought.

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 Petitioner’s request for fees and
costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to
compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows:

 Attorneys’ Fees Requested                                           $10,059.50
 (Reduction to Fees)                                                      -
 Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded                                       $10,059.50

 Attorneys’ Costs Requested                                            $658.13
 (Reduction of Costs)                                                     -
 Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded                                        $658.13

 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs                                     $10,717.63

       Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

                                                 3
    1) A lump sum in the amount of $10,717.63, representing reimbursement for reasonable
       attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
       Petitioner’s counsel of record, Ms. Shealene Mancuso.

        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 to seek
review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).
                                                 4