Court Opinion

ID: 3215488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-21 20:07:07.45218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:44.332570
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 15-1362V
                                      Filed: May 24, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED
*********************************
ANGELINE HOWK,                                    *
                                                  *
                         Petitioner,              *
v.                                                *
                                                  *       Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                               *       Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                               *
                                                  *
                         Respondent.              *
                                                  *
****************************
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On November 12, 2015, Angeline Howk (“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”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder
injury as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on September 18, 2014.
On April 12, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to
petitioner based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 18).

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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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

                                                      1
        On May 5, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No.
22). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,180.00, and attorneys’
costs in the amount of $767.48, for a total amount of $14,947.48. Id. at 2. In
accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner
incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. On May 9, 2016, respondent filed a response to
petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 23).

        In her response, 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 she “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent further “asserts that a reasonable
amount for fees and costs in the present case would fall between $12,000.00 to
$14,000.00” but provides no basis or explanation for how she arrived at this proposed
range. Id. at 3.

        On May 17, 2016, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 25). Petitioner argues that
respondent has provided “no precise objections” and “fails to specify any deficiencies,
unreasonable items, or billing issues in petitioner’s Application for attorneys’ fees and
costs.” Id. Petitioner includes a list of the attorneys’ fees and costs awarded
petitioner’s counsel since 2014.

        Petitioner requests additional attorneys’ fees in the amount of $255.00 (one hour
of time) for preparing the reply. Id. at 5. The undersigned finds the request for the
additional hour spent preparing the reply to be reasonable and awards the full amount
requested for preparation of the reply brief, $255.00.3 Thus, the total amount awarded
for attorneys’ fees and costs is $15,202.48.

      The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request. In the undersigned’s experience, the 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 $15,202.48,4 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Muller Brazil, LLP.

3
 The undersigned may reduce the attorneys’ fees sought for additional filings of a similar reply in other
cases.
4
  This 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
                                                     2
        The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                          Chief Special Master

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).
5
  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