Court Opinion

ID: 4245133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-14 21:04:20.543856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:33.563704
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 16-1357V
                                    Filed: October 20, 2017
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    DOUGLAS A. FREEDMAN,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

      On October 18, 2016, Douglas A. Freedman (“petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). On September 7, 2017, the
undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on
respondent’s proffer to which petitioner agreed. (ECF No. 29).

       On October 2, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Pet. Motion”) (ECF No. 32).
Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,644.10 and attorneys’ costs in
the amount of $817.63. Id. at 1. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner's

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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). 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.

2
 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. Thus, the
total amount requested is $14,461.73.

        On October 11, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF
No. 33.) 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.” Id. 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. Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special
Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees
and costs.” Id. at 3.

        Petitioner has filed no reply

       The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request. Petitioner seeks an amount for attorneys’ fees which reflect the following
hourly rates, to include increased rates for 2017:

        Ed Kraus                (Attorney)       $389.00         for 2016
                                                 $398.00         for 2017
        Amy Kraus               (Attorney)       $318.00         for 2017
        Tara O’Mahoney          (Attorney)       $275.00         for 2016
                                                 $281.00         for 2017

See Tab A to Pet. Motion at 4-11. Additionally, some of the work performed by Ms.
Kraus and Ms. O’Mahoney is billed at a paralegal hourly rate, $125.00. See id. at 4-7,
9.

        The rates requested are within the ranges of forum rates in the schedules found
on the court’s website3 which are based upon the ranges of forum rates set forth in
McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).4 Additionally, petitioner’s counsel has appropriately
billed at a reduced paralegal rate for work that could be performed by a paralegal.5 The

3 See http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2015-2016.pdf
(last visited on Aug. 9, 2017) (for the OSM’s 2015-16 Fee Schedule);
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2017.pdf (last
visited on Aug. 9, 2017) (OSM’s 2017 Fee Schedule).
4Although the parties in McCulloch did not seek review, much of the reasoning of the McCulloch decision
was later examined approvingly in Garrison v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-762V, 128 Fed.
Cl. 99 (2016).

5 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s
rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately
                                                    2
undersigned finds the rates requested, including the increased 2017 amounts, to be
appropriate hourly rates for work performed by the attorneys in this case. In the
undersigned’s experience, petitioner’s request appears reasonable, and the
undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

      The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned
GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

      Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $14,461.736 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,
Edward M. Kraus.

        The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                          Chief Special Master

performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010).

6This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would
be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).

7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
                                                     3