Court Opinion

ID: 4390476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-24 20:01:52.769213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:51:50.649639
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1003V
                                      Filed: March 4, 2019
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    ROMANA ESTES,

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

                       Respondent.

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On July 25, 2017, 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a flu vaccine received on November 6, 2015.
Petition at 1. On November 20, 2018, the undersigned issued a decision awarding
compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 36.

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
This means the decision 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, 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).

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).
        On January 29, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 41. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $23,840.80 and attorneys’
costs in the amount of $1,690.59. Id. at 1-2. In compliance with General Order #9,
petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 42. Thus, the total amount requested is $25,531.39.

        On February 12, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF
No. 43. 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.

      Petitioner has filed no reply.

      The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the
reasons listed below.

      I.      Legal Standard

         The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.§
15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific
billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the
service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in
their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s
discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is]
reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may
reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and
without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not
engaged in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees.
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

        The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24
Cl. Ct. at 482, 484 (1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel
“should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive,

                                            2
redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is
obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S., at 434.

          II.       Attorney Fees

                    A. Hourly Rates

        Petitioner requests compensation for attorney Joseph Pepper at a rate of $331
per hour for time billed in 2018. ECF No. 41 at 21. Mr. Pepper was previously awarded
the rate of $305 for time billed in 2018. See Chandler v. Sec’y of Health and Human
Servs., No. 16-0322V, 2018 WL 3031053, (Fed. Cl. Sp. Mstr. April 4, 2018). The
undersigned reduces the requested 2018 rate for Mr. Pepper to the previously awarded
rate of $305 per hour. This results in a reduction of $2.60.

                    B. Administrative Time

        Upon review of the billing records submitted, it appears that a number of entries
are for tasks considered clerical or administrative. In the Vaccine Program, secretarial
work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the
attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Dingle v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 08-579V, 2014 WL 630473, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 24, 2014). “[B]illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the
Vaccine Program.” Mostovoy, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (citing Rochester, 18 Cl. Ct. at
387). A total of 3.9 hours was billed by paralegals on tasks considered administrative
including, receiving documents, forwarding correspondence, reviewing and organizing
the client file, and mailing documents. Examples of these entries include:3

                •   March 2, 2017 (1.30 hrs) “review, organize and prep medical records, Ex 1
                    to 9 for summarization and electronic filing”
                •   May 22, 2017 (0.60 hrs) “prep new records/exhibits 10 – 12 for
                    summarization and electronic filing”
                •   July 25, 2017 (0.40 hrs) “petition for compensation; filed electronically;
                    mailed service copies to HHS; copy saved to case file with receipt for
                    filling fee”
                •   March 23, 2018 (0.50 hrs) “case material on a flash drive which will be
                    sent to the client; draft letter to accompany case material; prepare cert
                    mail to client”
                •   November 15, 2018 (0.20 hrs) “signed stipulation being sent to DOJ, case
                    file updated, fed ex package prepared with stipulation”

ECF No. 41 at 7, 9, 11, 13 and 18.

3   These are merely examples and not an exhaustive list.
                                                     3
     The undersigned reduces the request for attorney fees by $979.80, the total
amount of the entries considered administrative.

        III.    Attorney Costs

       Petitioner requests compensation of attorney costs in the amount of $1,690.59.
This total includes costs for travel, medical records, postage and copies. The
undersigned finds the overall amount of costs reasonable and awards the amount
requested in full.

        IV.     Conclusion

     Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS
IN PART petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

      Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $24,548.994 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Ronald Craig Homer.

        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

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).

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.
                                                      4