Court Opinion

ID: 4272463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-03 20:04:24.45072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:18.793507
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-1419V
                                    Filed: February 22, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    CORINNA BAYE,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Amy Paula Kokot, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On October 27, 2016, 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 alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)
caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine she received on November 18, 2014. Petition at
1. On July 17, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to
petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 26).

       On February 9, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 32). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,573.50 and
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $752.62. (Id. at 4.) Additionally, in accordance with

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
General Order #9, petitioner's counsel represented that petitioner incurred $2.80 in out-
of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 32-5). Thus, the total amount requested is $21,328.92. 3

        On February 15, 2018, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF
No. 33). 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 he “is
satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in
this case.” (Id. at 2). Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special
Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees
and costs.” (Id. at 3).

       On February 20, 2018, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 34). Petitioner
requests that the undersigned award the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs sought.
Petitioner also requests out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $2.80 that was
inadvertently omitted from the request for attorney’s fees and costs. (Id at 2).

      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 $21,328.92 4 as follows:

             •   A lump sum of $19,189.03, representing reimbursement for
                 attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to
                 petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Elizabeth M. Muldowney, for
                 work performed at RawlsMcnelis, PC; and

3The total amount requested in the motion for attorney’s fees is $21,326.12. (ECF No. 32 at 8).
Petitioner’s counsel corrected the total amount requested to $21,328.92 in the reply filed on February 20,
2018 (ECF No. 34, at 2).
4This 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
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).

                                                    2
             •   A lump sum of $2,137.09, representing reimbursement for attorneys’
                 fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner
                 and petitioner’s counsel, Elizabeth M. Muldowney, for work
                 performed at Sands Anderson PC; and

             •   A lump sum of $2.80, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s
                 costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

        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

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