In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-536V
Filed: October 19, 2017
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL HALL, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, *
v. * Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
* Respondent Does Not Object;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Hourly Rate
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kevin Mack, Esq., Law Office of Kevin A. Mack, Tiffin, OH, for petitioner.
Lisa Watts, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Roth, Special Master:
On April 17, 2017, Michael Hall (“Mr. Hall,” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that
he received an influenza vaccination on January 28, 2016, and thereafter developed facial
swelling, difficulty swallowing, and shortness of breath. See Petition (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1. On
August 23, 2017, petitioner filed a status report advising that he was unable to secure any
medical records supporting a vaccine injury lasting six months or longer. As such, he would be
filing a motion for a dismissal decision. Pet. S.R., ECF No. 10. On August 31, 2017, petitioner
filed a Motion for Dismissal Decision. See Motion, ECF No. 11. That same day, the undersigned
issued a Decision dismissing petitioner’s claim. See Decision, ECF No. 12.
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I
intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the
E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44
U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and
move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B).
Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted
decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that
provision, I will delete 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 September 29, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Motion
for Fees, ECF No. 14. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,782.00, and
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $592.70, for a total amount of $6,374.70. Motion for Fees, Ex.
A, ECF No. 14-1, at 1. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that
petitioner did not incur any out-of-pocket expenses. Motion for Fees at 1.
On October 11, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioners’ Motion for Fees.
Response, ECF No. 16. Respondent provided no specific objection to the amount requested or
hours worked, but instead, “respectfully recommend[ed] that the Special Master exercise her
discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3.
Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for decision.
I. Legal Framework
The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.”
§ 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys’ fees
is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need
not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good
faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1).
The Federal Circuit has endorsed the use of the lodestar approach to determine what
constitutes “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs” under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an
initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys’ fees” is calculated 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)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward
based on other specific findings. Id.
Special masters have substantial discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request
sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing petitioners with
notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl.
201, 209 (2009). Special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee
application when reducing fees. See Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed.
Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
II. Discussion
A. Reasonable Hourly Rate
A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d
at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for
the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of
petitioner’s attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for
2
attorney’s fees to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney’s work is done
outside the forum jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local
hourly rate and forum hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste
Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
Petitioner has requested an hourly rate of $295 for Mr. Mack. In Mosier v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 16-418V, 2017 WL 2544895, at 2* (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16,
2017), Special Master Gowen determined that $295 was an appropriate hourly rate based on Mr.
Mack’s more than 30 years of experience. The undersigned agrees and finds the requested rate to
be reasonable.
B. Hours Reasonably Expended
Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that
are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton ex rel. 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)). “Unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a
single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing
excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys
entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691,
703 (2016). While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be
comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O’Neill v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 08-243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015).
Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See,
e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at
one-half of the normal hourly attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
08-756V, 2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And
“it is inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the
Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 14-1111V, 2016 WL
2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Ultimately, 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.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special
masters may reduce the number of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See
Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 728-29 (affirming the Special Master’s reduction of attorney and
paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).
Upon review of petitioner’s application, the number of hours expended in this case
appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the undersigned awards the requested attorneys’ fees.
C. Reasonable Costs
Petitioner requested a total of $592.70 in attorneys’ costs. See Motion for Fees, Ex. A,
ECF No.14-1. The requested costs consist of the $400 filing fee and $174.33 in costs associated
3
with obtaining medical records. Id. The undersigned finds petitioner’s requested costs to be
reasonable.
III. Total Award Summary
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned awards the total of $6,374.70,3 representing
reimbursement for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,782.00 and costs in the amount of
$592.70, in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,
Kevin Mack, Esq. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
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 each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
4