Court Opinion

ID: 8209722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-27 21:01:58.943318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:43.983835
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 20-1112V
                                        (not to be published)

    SHANEL MAYO,
                                                                Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
    v.                                                          Filed: August 26, 2022

    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                     Special Processing Unit                 (SPU);
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                             Attorney’s Fees and Costs

                         Respondent.

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

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

                       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 Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 26).

1  Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 Decision 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).
        Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated July 11, 2022
(ECF No. 31), 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 incurred 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. 32). Petitioner did not
file a reply thereafter.

       I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests 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
service, 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.
Sec’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] reasonable 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 & Human 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 petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” 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 sought] 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 ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.

                                             2
                                           ATTORNEY FEES

       Petitioner requests the following rates for attorney Leigh Finfer 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 Mrs. 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 2021, less
than what is being requested herein. See Winkle v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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
$7.50. 3

                                          ATTORNEY COSTS

        Petitioner requests $518.23 in overall costs. (ECF No. 31 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.

                                             CONCLUSION

       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 Decision. 4

3   This amount consists of ($350 - $275 = $75 x 0.10 hrs = $7.50).

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.
                                                      3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

                    4