Court Opinion

ID: 8167752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 21:02:55.671296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:41.319620
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                              OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

**********************
MOHSIN BHOJANI,                          *
                                         *           No. 18-1337V
                    Petitioner,          *           Special Master Christian J. Moran
                                         *
v.                                       *           Filed: August 15, 2022
                                         *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                      *           Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                      *
                                         *
                    Respondent.          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *

Mark T. Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for
Petitioner;
Ryan D. Pyles, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                      UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING
                        ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

       Pending before the Court is petitioner Mohsin Bhojani’s motion for final
attorneys’ fees and costs. He is awarded $40,744.44.

                                        *       *       *

     On August 31, 2018, petitioner filed for compensation under the Nation
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 through 34.

       1
          Because this published decision 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). This posting means the
decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule
18(b), the parties have 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.
Petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine he received on or about September 22,
2015, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused
him to suffer from the Miller Fisher variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome. After
medical records were filed, petitioner was ordered to file an affidavit expressing
his interest in maintaining the litigation. Despite the efforts of counsel on multiple
occasions using multiple mediums of communication, Mr. Sadaka was unable to
reach petitioner. Therefore, on October 26, 2021, the undersigned issued his
decision dismissing the petition for failure to prosecute. 2021 WL 5356292 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 26, 2021).

       On November 9, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and
costs (“Fees App.”). Petitioner’s motion for final fees and costs incorporates a
motion for interim fees and costs which was filed on April 15, 2021 and combined
requests attorneys’ fees of $39,791.60 and attorneys’ costs of $952.84 for a total
request of $40,744.44. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated
that he has not personally incurred any fees or costs related to the prosecution of
his petition. On November 11, 2021, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s
motion. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13
contemplates any role for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner
for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Response at 1. Respondent adds,
however that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’
fees and costs are met in this case.” Id at 2. Additionally, he recommends “that
the Court exercise its discretion” when determining a reasonable award for
attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at 3. Petitioner filed a reply on November 17, 2021,
reiterating his belief that the requested fees and costs are reasonable.

                                    *     *       *

       Although compensation was denied, petitioners who bring their petitions in
good faith and who have a reasonable basis for their petitions may be awarded
attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). In this case, although
petitioner’s claim was ultimately unsuccessful the undersigned finds that good
faith and reasonable basis existed throughout the matter. Respondent has also
indicated that he is satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been
satisfied. Respondent’s position greatly contributes to the finding of reasonable
basis. See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008) (“[W]e rely on the
parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral
arbiter of matters the parties present.”) A final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs is therefore proper in this case and the remaining question is whether the
requested fees and costs are reasonable.

                                              2
       The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
§15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. This is a two-step
process. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). First, a court determines an “initial estimate … 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)).
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. Here, because
the lodestar process yields a reasonable result, no additional adjustments are
required. Instead, the analysis focuses on the elements of the lodestar formula, a
reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours.

       In light of the Secretary’s lack of objection, the undersigned has reviewed
the fee application for its reasonableness. See McIntosh v. Secʼy of Health &
Human Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. 238 (2018)

      A.     Reasonable Hourly Rates

       Under the Vaccine Act, special masters, in general, should use the forum
(District of Columbia) rate in the lodestar calculation. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349.
There is, however, an exception (the so-called Davis County exception) to this
general rule when the bulk of the work is done outside the District of Columbia
and the attorneys’ rates are substantially lower. Id. 1349 (citing Davis Cty. Solid
Waste Mgmt. and Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). In this case, all the attorneys’ work
was done outside of the District of Columbia.

       Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for the work of his
counsel, Mr. Mark Sadaka: $376.38 per hour for work performed in 2017, $396.00
per hour for work performed in 2018, $405.00 per hour for work performed in
2019, and $422.00 per hour for work performed in 2020. The undersigned has
reviewed the requested rates and finds them to be reasonable and consistent with
what special masters have previously awarded to petitioner’s counsel for his
Vaccine Program work. See, e.g. Rose v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
17-1770V, 2021 WL 3053035 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jun. 28, 2021). Accordingly,
the requested hourly rates are reasonable.

                                             3
       B.      Reasonable Number of Hours

      The second factor in the lodestar formula is a reasonable number of hours.
Reasonable hours are not excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. See
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Secretary also did not directly challenge any of the requested hours as
unreasonable.

       The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds the
request to be reasonable. The billing entries contain sufficient detail to permit the
undersigned to assess their reasonableness, and upon review none appear to be
objectionable. Respondent also has not indicated that he finds any of the billing
entries to be objectionable. Therefore, petitioner is awarded final attorneys’ fees in
the amount of $39,791.60.

       C.      Costs Incurred

      Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be
reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed.
Cl. 1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner requests a total of
$952.84 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical
records, the Court’s filing fee, postage, and a subpoena service. These costs are all
reasonable and supported with the proper documentation and shall be awarded in
full.

               E.     Conclusion

      The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). Accordingly, I award a total of $40,744.44 (representing
$39,791.60 in attorneys’ fees and $952.84 in attorneys’ costs) as a lump sum in the
form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Mark
Sadaka.

       In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B,
the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

               IT IS SO ORDERED.

       2
          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
    s/Christian J. Moran
    Christian J. Moran
    Special Master

5