Court Opinion

ID: 8210104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-28 21:02:33.493828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:47.646585
License: Public Domain

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

**********************
MARK SANTIA,                             *
                                         *           No. 19-762V
                    Petitioner,          *           Special Master Christian J. Moran
                                         *
v.                                       *           Filed: August 19, 2022
                                         *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                      *           Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                      *
                                         *
                    Respondent.          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *

Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, 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                      UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING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 Mark Sanita’s motion for final
attorneys’ fees and costs. He is awarded $36,874.60.

                                        *       *       *

       On May 22, 2019, petitioner filed for compensation under the Nation
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 through 34.
Petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine he received on May 22, 2019, which is

       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.
contained in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused him to suffer a
left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. On December 21,
2021, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as his decision
awarding compensation on December 22, 2021. 2021 WL 6496116 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Dec. 22, 2021).

       On December 23, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and
costs (“Fees App.”). Petitioner’s motion requests attorneys’ fees of $35,144.90 and
attorneys’ costs of $1,729.70 for a total request of $36,874.60. Fees App. at 3.
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 December
23, 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 did not file a reply thereafter.

                                   *     *       *

       Because petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–15(e). Thus, the question
at bar is whether the requested amount is reasonable.

       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.

                                             2
       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: for Mr. Glen Sturtevant: $339.00 per hour for work performed in 2019,
and $353.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $372.00 per hour for work
performed in 2021; and for Mr. Ted McFadden, $395.00 per hour for work
performed in 2018 and $422.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. 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 their Vaccine Program work. See, e.g. Jones v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 17-1770V, 2021 WL 841050 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 12,
2021).

      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 $35,144.90.

      C.     Costs Incurred
                                              3
      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
$1,729.70 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical
records, the Court’s filing fee, and postage. These costs are all reasonable and
supported with the proper documentation and shall be awarded in full.

       D.      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 $36,874.60 (representing
$35,144.90 in attorneys’ fees and $1,729.70 in attorneys’ costs) as a lump sum in
the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Glen
Sturtevant, Jr.

       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.

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

       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