Court Opinion

ID: 4438473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-16 16:01:52.632924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:51:34.350393
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-785V
                                     Filed: August 13, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * *  *
JOHN COLAPIETRO,           *                               UNPUBLISHED
                           *
     Petitioner,           *
                           *
v.                         *                               Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
                           *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH        *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,        *
                           *
            Respondent.    *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amber Wilson, Esq., Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Mallori Openchowski, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                        DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

       On June 13, 2017, John Colapietro (“Mr. Colapietro” or “petitioner”) filed a petition
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that he
developed chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) after receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 9, 2015, and a Prevnar-13 vaccine on October 26,
2015. Stipulation at ¶¶ 1-4, ECF No. 36. On March 14, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation, which
the undersigned adopted as her Decision awarding compensation on the same day. ECF No. 36.

       On April 29, 2019, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No.
41 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of

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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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.
$43,576.46 (representing $22,115.40 in attorneys’ fees and $21,461.06 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. Id. at 2. Respondent responded to the motion on May 15, 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.” Response at 2-3, ECF No. 44. Petitioner filed a
reply on May 16, 2019, reiterating his belief that the requested amount of fees and costs was
reasonable. Reply at 4, ECF No. 45.

        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
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

                                                  2
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 the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel: for Ms. Amber
Wilson, $308.00 per hour for work perfomed in 2017-2018 and $323.00 per hour for work
performed in 2019; for Mr. Altom Maglio, $362.00 per hour for work performed in 2017; and for
Ms. Diana Stadelnikas, $372.00 per hour for work performed in 2017. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 15. The
rates requested for Mr. Maglio and Ms. Stadelnikas are consistent with what they have previously
been awarded for their vaccine program work.

        The rate requested for Ms. Wilson’s work in 2017 requires adjustment. Ms. Wilson has
consistently been awarded $290.00 per hour for her 2017 Vaccine Program work. See Douglass v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-175V, 2019 WL 3239466, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jun. 26, 2019); Waldorf v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-758V, 2019 WL 1796137, at
*2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 6, 2019). No persuasive basis has been offered to depart from these
prior determinations. The submitted billing record reflects that Ms. Wilson billed 11.7 hours in
2017. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 15. The undersigned will therefore reduce the final award of fees by
$210.60.4

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
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%20Schedule
%202018.pdf.
The 2019 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20Schedule
%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).
4
    ($308.00 requested rate - $290.00 adjusted rate) * 11.7 hours = $210.60.

                                                      3
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,
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 (91.6) appear to be mostly reasonable. The only
reduction necessary is for time billed by paralegals for downloading filings. See generally fees
App. Ex. 1. Beyond the fact that downloading a document from CMECF does not take six minutes,
the billing records indicate Ms. Wilson also billed for review of all filings, meaning that even
review of routine filings such as scheduling had twelve minutes of time billed for their handling.
Accordingly, the undersigned shall reduce the final award of fees by $518.30 to account for these
entries. Petitioner is therefore entitled to final attorneys’ fees of $21,386.50.

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 $21,461.06 in costs. Fees App. Ex. 2 at 1. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical
records, postage, the Court’s filing fee, travel to meet with petitioner, and the expert work of Dr. Jeffrey
Allen in reviewing medical records, researching medical literature, and preparing an expert report. The
undersigned has reviewed the submitted documentation and finds that Dr. Allen’s requested rate
($500.00 per hour) and hours billed are reasonable in light of the work performed. The rest of the costs
are typical of vaccine program litigation, and petitioner has provided adequate documentation to support
them. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the full amount of attorneys’ costs sought.

                                                 III. Conclusion

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

     1) $42,847.56, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in
        the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Ms. Amber Wilson, 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.5

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                 s/Mindy Michaels Roth
                                                 Mindy Michaels Roth
                                                 Special Master

5
 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