Court Opinion

ID: 4094154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-31 20:04:14.632537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:35.410137
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-759V
                                     Filed: August 12, 2016
                                         UNPUBLISHED
*********************************
SANDRA G. PRICE,                                  *
                                                  *
                         Petitioner,              *
v.                                                *
                                                  *        Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                               *        Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                               *
                                                  *
                         Respondent.              *
                                                  *
****************************
William Patrick Ronan III, The Ronan Law Firm, Overland Park, KS, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On July 20, 2015, 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 arm and shoulder injuries that were caused in
fact by her influenza (“flu”) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccinations received on September 10, 2014. Petition at 1-4. On July 1, 2016, the
undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the
parties’ Proffer. (ECF No. 31).

      On July 26, 2016, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 33). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.

2National 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).
$13,763.34. Id. at 7. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed
statement on August 8, 2016 indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
(ECF No. 38).

       On July 27, 2016, respondent filed a response stating that

       [r]espondent does not object to the overall amount sought, as it is not an
       unreasonable amount to have been incurred for proceedings in this case
       to date. Respondent’s lack of objection to the amount sought in this case
       should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the
       hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation
       related costs.

(ECF No. 34).

        In light of all the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly including the
history of expedited resolution within the Special Processing Unit, and mindful of
respondent’s response to the instant application, the undersigned finds upon review of
the submitted billing records and based on the undersigned’s experience evaluating fee
applications in similar Vaccine Act claims that the overall amount sought for attorneys’
fees and costs is reasonable. Thus, especially in the absence of any particularized
objection from respondent, further analysis is not warranted. Special Masters have
“wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Hines v. HHS, 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (Fed. Cl. 1991). Moreover, Special Masters are
entitled to rely on their own experience and understanding of the issues raised. Wasson
v. HHS, 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (Fed. Cl. 1991) aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131
(Fed.Cir.1993) (per curiam). J.B. v. HHS, No. 15-67V, 2016 WL 4046871 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2016) (addressing attorneys’ fees and costs in the context of a
history of attorneys’ fees and costs awards in over 300 similarly situated SPU cases.)

       The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of opposition
from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees
and costs.

                                             2
      Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $13,763.34 3 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,
William Patrick Ronan, III.

        The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                           s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Chief Special Master

3 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
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).

4 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