Court Opinion

ID: 4412042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-27 21:02:23.38013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:04.044285
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                              OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                        No. 14-77V
                                   Filed: May 28, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JOSEPH PAULOWSKY,          *                         UNPUBLISHED
                           *
     Petitioner,           *
                           *
v.                         *                         Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
                           *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH        *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,        *
                           *
            Respondent.    *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark Sadaka, Esq., Englewood, NJ, for Petitioner.
Lara Englund, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

        On January 27, 2014, Joseph Paulowsky (“Mr. Paulowsky” or “Petitioner”) filed a
petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner initially
alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 1, 2011, caused him to
develop a systemic inflammatory response leading to a heart attack and decreased cardiac
strength and function. Stipulation, filed August 16, 2018, at ¶¶ 1-4. On February 24, 2017,
Petitioner filed an amended petition alleging that the flu vaccine also caused a shoulder injury.
Id. at ¶ 4. On August 16, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as

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 Because this unpublished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.
her Decision awarding damages on the same day. ECF No. 81.

        On February 20, 2019, Petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 85 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
$81,001.85 (representing $45,038.00 in attorneys’ fees and $35,963.85 in costs). Fees App at 1.
Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner warrants that he has not incurred any costs in pursuit
of this litigation. ECF No. 86. Respondent responded to the motion on March 1, 2019, stating
“Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are
met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned “exercise her discretion and determine a
reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2-3. ECF No. 87. Petitioner filed
a reply on March 4, 2019, reiterating his belief that the requested amount of fees and costs is
reasonable. ECF No. 88.

        This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I.     Legal Framework

        The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs.” §
15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is
automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not
prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith”
and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner
was awarded compensation, he is entitled to a reasonable award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

        The Federal Circuit has endorsed the use of the lodestar approach to determine what
constitutes “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs” under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an initial
estimate of a reasonable attorneys' fees” is calculated by “multiplying the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. at 1347–48 (quoting
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward
based on other specific findings. Id.

        Special masters have substantial discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request
sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing petitioners with
notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl.
201, 209 (2009). Special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner's fee
application when reducing fees. See Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed.
Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

II.    Discussion

       a. Reasonable Hourly Rate

       A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d
at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for

                                                 2
the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of petitioner's
attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorney's fees
to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum
jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum
hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery
Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

        For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining
the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys' fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See
McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and
has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years.3

        Petitioner requests that his attorney, Mr. Mark Sadaka, be compensated at the following
rates: $337.05 per hour for work performed in 2012 and 2013, $350.00 per hour for work
performed in 2014 and 2015, $362.95 per hour for work performed in 2016, $376.38 per hour for
work performed in 2017, $396 per hour for work performed in 2018. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 28. These
rates are consistent with what Mr. Sadaka has been awarded for his work in the Vaccine Program.
See, e.g., Taylor v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-700V, 2018 WL 6291355, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 30, 2018). Accordingly, the requested rates are reasonable.

       b. Hours Reasonably 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 ex rel. Saxton v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
434 (1983)). “Unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a
single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing
excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys
entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691,
3
 The 2015-2016 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2015-
2016.pdf. The 2017 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2017.pdf.
The 2018 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20S
chedule%202018.pdf.
The 2019 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20S
chedule%202019.pdf. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the
decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

                                                  3
703 (2016). 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. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at one-
half of the normal hourly attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–756V,
2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And “it is
inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine
Program.” Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 14–1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Ultimately, it is “well within the Special Master's discretion
to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work
done.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number
of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 728–
29 (affirming the Special Master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).

        The overall hours spent on this matter (159.1) appear to be reasonable. The undersigned
has reviewed the billing entries and finds that the billing entries adequately describe the work done
on the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable
and Respondent has not identified any entries as objectionable either. Accordingly, Petitioner is
entitled to a final award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $45,038.00.

          c. Reasonable 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 $35,963.85 in costs. Fees App. Ex. B. The majority of this amount is for work done by
Petitioner’s three experts, Dr. M. Eric Gershwin ($15,750.00), Dr. Jeff Bomze ($7,100.00), and Dr.
Michael Eldar ($11,500.00). The undersigned finds the work performed by these experts reasonable and
shall reimburse them in full.

        The remainder of the costs are for acquiring medical records, postage, and the Court’s filing fee.
Petitioner has provided adequate documentation for these costs and they shall be fully reimbursed.
Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ costs in the amount of $35,963.85.

III.      Conclusion

       In accordance with the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is
GRANTED. I find that Petitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs as
follows:

       1) A lump sum in the amount of $81,001.85, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s
          attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Mr. Mark
          Sadaka, Esq.

                                                    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.4

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                             s/Mindy Michaels Roth
                                             Mindy Michaels Roth
                                             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).
                                                5