Court Opinion

ID: 9382681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 16:04:35.202859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.116490
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                              OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                   Filed: March 3, 2023

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *                  *
CHRISTOPHER JAY HANKINS,                     *       PUBLISHED
                                             *
               Petitioner,                   *       No. 20-1342V
                                             *
v.                                           *       Special Master Dorsey
                                             *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                          *       Motion to Approve Expert; Pre-Approval
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                          *       of Expert Rate; Vaccine Act § 15(e)(1).
                                             *
               Respondent.                   *
                                             *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *                  *

Kelly Danielle Burdette, Burdette Law, PLLC, North Bend, WA, for Petitioner.
Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

        ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPROVE EXPERT1

        This matter is before the undersigned on Petitioner’s motion to approve expert.
Petitioner’s Motion to Approve Expert (“Pet. Mot.”), filed Feb. 2, 2023 (ECF No. 37). Petitioner
seeks the Court’s permission to allow Petitioner to retain an expert based upon a fee schedule.
Id. Respondent filed a response opposing the motion. Respondent’s Response to Pet. Mot.
(“Resp. Response”), filed Feb. 9, 2023 (ECF No. 38). Having reviewed the record as a whole
and as explained below, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

I.     BACKGROUND

1
  Because this Order 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 means the Order 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.
        On October 7, 2020, Christopher Jay Hankins (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the
National Vaccine Injury Program2 alleging that as a result of receiving a pneumococcal 13-valent
conjugate vaccine (“Prevnar 13”) on September 27, 2019, Petitioner suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1); Amended
(“Am.”) Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 21).

       On July 15, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report arguing against compensation.
Resp. Report (“Rept.”) (ECF No. 25). Upon reassignment to the undersigned on August 15,
2022, an order was issued directing Petitioner to file an expert report in support of his petition
and addressing the issues raised in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Order dated Aug. 16, 2022
(ECF No. 28). Petitioner filed three motions for extension of time before filing the motion to
approve an expert on February 2, 2023, subject to this Order. See ECF Nos. 29, 31, 35.

         Petitioner originally obtained Dr. Ma to prepare an expert report. Pet. Mot. at 1. On
October 19, 2022, Dr. Ma wrote a letter stating his opinions, but they “fell short of the Althen
criteria.” Id. Petitioner’s counsel wrote to Dr. Ma setting forth the Althen requirements and
asked Dr. Ma to address those requirements in another letter. Id. In follow-up with Dr. Ma’s
office, Petitioner’s counsel was not permitted to speak with Dr. Ma and his staff was unable to
confirm either that Dr. Ma had received the letter or that there was any evidence in Petitioner’s
file that work was being done on the matter. Id. To date, Dr. Ma has not responded to
Petitioner’s counsel nor provided a report addressing the Althen requirements. Id. at 1-2.

         After three motions for extensions of time, Petitioner subsequently located another
expert, Sara Jurek, M.D., who agreed to review Petitioner’s case. Pet. Mot. at 2. Based on
experience, Petitioner’s counsel indicated the Court has, in past cases, “been reluctant to award
reimbursement for certain expert fees.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner requests that counsel “be
granted permission” to retain Dr. Jurek in this matter “based upon the fee schedule submitted.”
Id. at 1-2. The requested hourly rate for Dr. Jurek is $1,000.00 per hour for medical record
review. Id. at 3. No curriculum vitae (“CV”) was submitted for Dr. Jurek.

        On February 9, 2023, Respondent filed a response opposing Petitioner’s motion. Resp.
Response at 1. Respondent argued that Petitioner’s motion for pre-approval of Dr. Jurek is
“speculative and premature.” Id. at 3. Specifically, Respondent noted Dr. Jurek’s
“extraordinarily high rate,” and that Petitioner has offered no evidence to support such. Id. at 2.
Petitioner did not file a reply by the court-imposed deadline.

II.    DISCUSSION

        The Vaccine Act provides for the payment of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs—
including fees to be paid to experts—that are “incurred” in bringing a petition when the
petition results in an award of compensation. § 15(e)(1). When compensation is not awarded,

2
  The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this Order to
individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.
the special master may award reasonable fees and costs incurred “if the special master or court
determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the
claim.” Id. If a special master has not yet determined entitlement, she may still award
attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515
F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

        “The determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs is within the
special master’s discretion.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1520
(Fed. Cir. 1993); O’Neill v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-243V, 2015 WL 2399211,
at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015) (“The special master is afforded significant
discretion when making determinations regarding the reasonableness of expert fees.”). The
special master initially applies the well-recognized lodestar method, which multiples the
number of hours reasonably expended by the expert on the litigation, by a reasonably hourly
rate. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1347-48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). The
special master’s determination regarding the reasonableness of an expert’s hourly rate includes
considering the area of expertise; education and training; prevailing rates of other comparable
experts; and “the nature, quality, and complexity of the information provided.” Baker v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-653V, 2005 WL 589431, at *3-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
24, 2005).

        Neither Respondent nor the undersigned question that the claim was brought in good
faith or built on a reasonable basis. Resp. Response at 1 n.1. However, Petitioner is not
requesting an award of costs at this time nor could he as Petitioner has not yet “incurred” costs
related to Dr. Jurek. The statute explicitly requires costs be “incurred in any proceeding on such
petition” to be determined reasonable and subsequently compensable. § 15(e)(1); see Fester v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at *7, *16 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013) (declining to “advance” funds for a proposed expert’s retainer, where the
Petitioner had not “incurred” an obligation to pay the expert, since no contract requiring payment
was submitted); see also Black v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 93 F.3d 781, 786 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (holding that incurred costs meant “expenses for which payment has been made or for
which liability has attached”). Therefore, it is premature to determine whether the “costs” for
experts’ fees are reasonable. Instead, Petitioner is asking the Court for permission to hire an
expert based on a fee schedule. Pet. Mot. at 2. The undersigned characterizes this as a “pre-
approval” for an expert’s rate.

       A party seeking pre-approval for expert rates must provide sufficient evidence to warrant
approval of the requested rate. Vogler v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-424V, 2013
WL 1635860, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 24, 2013); O’Neill, 2015 WL 2399211, at *2, *15.
This includes the expert’s education, training, and experience, including experience in the
Vaccine Program, and the expert’s area of expertise, including rates traditionally charged by
comparable experts in the Program. Vogler, 2013 WL 1635860, at *2; Allen v. Sec’y Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 11-051V, 2013 WL 5229796, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2013).

      In Vogler, the Petitioner sought pre-approval of an hourly rate of $500.00 for his
immunology expert. Vogler, 2013 WL 1635860, at *2. Petitioner offered the expert’s CV,
demonstrating his expertise in the relevant area, for support. Id. The special master denied
Petitioner’s motion, finding his CV alone was insufficient to warrant approval of the requested
rate. Id. Particularly, the special master reasoned the expert’s CV did “not indicate that he has
testified or had previous expert experience in the Vaccine Program” and there was “no indication
as to what his hourly rate ha[d] been on [other] occasions.” Id. Moreover, the special master
rejected Petitioner’s argument that the expert was “the only expert who agreed to participate in
the case on Petitioner’s behalf” as support for a higher rate than what was reflected on the
expert’s website. Id. at *3.

        In contrast, the special master in Allen found $500.00 per hour appropriate for
Petitioner’s neurology expert and pre-approved the amount. Allen, 2013 WL 5229796, at *2.
There, the Petitioner presented evidence beyond the expert’s CV showing the expert had
expertise in the area relevant to Petitioner’s claim, and that the rate was consistent with that
awarded to other experts with comparable expertise, as well as the expert’s own rates which were
previously approved in the Program. Id.

        Here, Petitioner has not provided evidence to warrant pre-approval of Dr. Jurek’s hourly
rate. Petitioner did not offer Dr. Jurek’s CV. Even if Petitioner had offered Dr. Jurek’s CV
along with the fee schedule, it would still be insufficient to warrant pre-approval of any hourly
rate. See Vogler, 2013 WL 1635860, at *2. Moreover, there is no evidence establishing that Dr.
Jurek has prior experience in the Vaccine Program or other comparable experience. Resp.
Response at 3. Another reason the special master in Vogler found pre-approval of the expert’s
rate unwarranted was because there was no indication the expert had experience in the Program
and Petitioner had not offered evidence that the proposed rate was consistent with rates awarded
to other comparable experts. Vogler, 2013 WL 1635860, at *2-3, *2 n.4 (“[S]pecial masters look
to and frequently adopt the rate a particular expert has been awarded previously in the [P]rogram
absent some particular evidence that merits the award of a different rate in a specific case.”).

        Further, as raised by Respondent, the undersigned notes the “unusually high rate”
proposed. Resp. Response at 2. While no CV was submitted, it appears Dr. Jurek is an
orthopedic surgeon. See id. at 1. Although it is premature to determine whether Dr. Jurek’s rate
is reasonable, case law provides guidance on this issue. See, e.g., Martinez v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-1352V, 2022 WL 4693287, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 8, 2022)
(finding $550.00 per hour a reasonable rate for an orthopedic surgeon); Koropatny v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1240V, 2022 WL 4517878, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31,
2022) (awarding $500.00 per hour for an orthopedic surgeon); Quantie v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-610V, 2022 WL 1412459, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 28, 2022)
(same); Ellingsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-421V, 2021 WL 1093939, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 11, 2021) (same). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to
justify approving a higher rate for Dr. Jurek than has been awarded to other orthopedic surgeons
in the Vaccine Program. See Vogler, 2013 WL 1635860, at *3.

III.   CONCLUSION

       For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned cannot “pre-approve” Dr. Jurek’s rate
and Petitioner’s motion must be DENIED. A separate scheduling order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

                    s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                    Nora Beth Dorsey
                    Special Master