Selmer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2019 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0188V
Filed: September 20, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
THERESA SELMER,
Petitioner,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Amy Paula Kokot, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On February 7, 2018, 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-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as
a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 27, 2016. Petition at
1. On August 15, 2019, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to
petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 41.
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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the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, the 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 September 4, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
ECF No. 45. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,555.50 and
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,153.81. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order
#9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket
expenses. Id. at 2. Thus, the total amount requested is $14,709.31.
On September 6, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF
No. 46. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13
requires respondent to file a response to 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 requests that the Chief Special Master exercise her
discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3.
On September 11, 2019, petitioner filed a reply. ECF No. 47. Petitioner
disputes respondent’s position that he has no role in resolving attorneys’ fees and costs
and further reiterates his view that his attorneys’ fees and costs in this case are
reasonable.
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
requests and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the
reason 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. 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 engage 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
2
“should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive,
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. Excessive and Duplicative Billing
The undersigned has previously reduced the fees paid to petitioners due to
excessive and duplicative billing. Ericzon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-
103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced overall fee award
by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 11-654V, 2016 WL 7212323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 2, 2016)
(reduced overall fee award by 20 percent), mot. for rev. denied, 129 Fed. Cl. 691(2016). The undersigned and other special masters have previously noted the
inefficiency that results when cases are staffed by multiple individuals and have reduced
fees accordingly. Sabella, 86 Fed. Cl. at 209.
Billing records show that two attorneys, one law clerk and four paralegals billed
time in this matter, with some billing less than one hour. This resulted in multiple
reviews of the same records, orders and updating the same entries on files. For
example, the attorney’s and the paralegals list 39 separate entries as reviewing court
notifications of filings and updating file entries and deadlines, for a total of 4.4 hours of
time billed. The undersigned reduces the request for attorney’s fees by $363.003, the
total of the duplicated entries at the paralegal rates.
III. Attorney Costs
Petitioner requests reimbursement for attorney costs in the amount of
$1,4346.31. After reviewing petitioner’s invoices, the undersigned finds no cause to
reduce petitioner’s’ request and awards the full amount of attorney costs sought.
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 $14,346.314 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
3 This amount consists of (1.1 hrs x $148 = $162.80) + (1.3 hrs x $154 = $200.20) = $363.00.
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).
3
Amber Diane Wilson. Petitioner requests check be forwarded to Maglio
Christopher & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236.
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.
4