Court Opinion

ID: 4671149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-24 20:02:19.96497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:25.257926
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                               OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                   Filed: February 11, 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * *  *                              UNPUBLISHED
TANJA WAGNER and SCOTT     *
WAGNER, on behalf of their Minor
                           *
Child, S.W.,               *                              No. 19-188V
                           *                              Special Master Horner
         Petitioners,      *
                           *
v.                         *
                           *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH        *                              Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
AND HUMAN SERVICES,        *
                           *
         Respondent.       *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

        On February 1, 2019, petitioners filed a claim for compensation pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their minor child, S.W.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 to 34 (2012). The petition alleged that S.W. suffered an adverse reaction, including postural
orthostatic tachycardia syndrome as a result of her third Gardasil Human Papillomavirus
vaccination administered on February 1, 2016. (ECF No. 1). On September 28, 2020, petitioners
filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition, and on October 14, 2020, I issued my decision
dismissing the petition for insufficient proof. (ECF No. 44).

1
 I intend 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, I agree that the identified material fits
within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling
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).
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).
        On October 16, 2020, petitioners filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 45) (“Fees App.”). Petitioners request total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
$27,564.40 (representing $25,948.50 in fees and $1,615.90 in costs). Fees App. at 2. Pursuant to
General Order No. 9, petitioners state that they did not personally incur any expenses associated
with this claim. Id. at 6. Respondent responded to the motion on November 16, 2020, stating that
“Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are
met in this case”. Resp. at 2 (ECF No. 47). Petitioners did not file a reply thereafter.

       This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I.     Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

          The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. at 1347-48. First, a court determines an “initial estimate
. . . by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable
hourly rate.’” Id. (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.

        It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant
the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and
costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing
records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however,
should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3
F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

        Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 894-95. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate
“in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove
that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

        Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte, without providing petitioners notice
and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209
(Fed. Cl. 2009). When determining the relevant fee reduction, special masters need not engage in
a line-by-line analysis of petitioners’ fee application. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Instead, they may rely on their experience with the
Vaccine Program to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Dep’t
of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991), rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant
part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to
reduce hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests . . . Vaccine program

                                                  2
special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton,
3 F.3d at 1521.

          a. Hourly Rates

        The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges
for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1,
2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The
Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee
Schedules for 2015–2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 can be accessed online.3

        Petitioners request compensation for their counsel at the following rates: for Mr. Andrew
Downing, $385.00 per hour for work performed in 2019-2020, and for Ms. Courtney Van Cott,
$205.00 per hour for work performed in 2019 and $275.00 per hour for work performed in 2020.
These rates are consistent with what Mr. Downing and Ms. Van Cott have previously been awarded
for their Vaccine Program work, and I find them to be reasonable for the instant case.

          b. Hours 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, 3 F.3d at 1521. 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.

        Upon review of the submitted billing records, I find the majority of the time billed to be
reasonable. The timesheet entries are sufficiently detailed for an assessment to be made of the
entries’ reasonableness. However, a small reduction is necessary due to excessive paralegal time
billed. Paralegals billed time on administrative tasks such as filing documents and handling
payments for medical records. These issues have previously been raised with the Van Cott &
Talamante firm. Sheridan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-669V, 2019 WL 948371, at
*2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019); Moran v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-
538V, 2019 WL 1556701, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019). Therefore, a reduction of
$500.00 is being made for excessive billing for paralegal time.

          Accordingly, petitioners are awarded final attorneys’ fees of $25,448.50.

          c. Attorneys’ 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). Petitioners request

3
    The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914.

                                                    3
a total of $1,615.90 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records,
postage, the Court’s filing fee, and work performed by petitioners’ medical expert, Dr. Mitchell
Miglis. Fees App. at 30-31. Petitioners have provided adequate documentation supporting the
requested costs and they appear reasonable in my experience. Petitioners are therefore awarded
the full amount of costs sought.

II.      Conclusion

       Based on all the above, I find that petitioners are entitled to the following award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs:

    Attorneys’ Fees Requested                                             $25,948.50
    (Reduction to Fees)                                                   - ($500.00)
    Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded                                         $25,448.50

    Attorneys’ Costs Requested                                             $1,615.90
    (Reduction of Costs)                                                       -
    Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded                                         $1,615.90

    Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs                                       $27,064.40

        In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), I have reviewed the
billing records and costs in this case and finds that petitioners’ request for fees and costs, other
than the reductions delineated above, is reasonable. Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the
amount of $27,064.40, representing reimbursement for petitioners’ attorneys’ fees and costs,
in the form of a check payable to petitioners and their attorney, Mr. Andrew Downing.

       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/Daniel T. Horner
                                                 Daniel T. Horner
                                                 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).

                                                     4