Moore v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2020 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: November 13, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PATRICIA MOORE on behalf of*
her deceased Husband, Dr. Timothy
*
Moore, * No. 18-1629V
* Special Master Sanders
Petitioner, *
* UNPUBLISHED
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner;
Emilie Williams, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On October 23, 2018, Patricia Moore (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on
behalf of her deceased husband, Dr. Timothy Moore, pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq. (2012). Petitioner alleged that the influenza
vaccine Dr. Moore received on December 2, 2016, caused him to develop Guillain-Barré
syndrome. On July 9, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her
1
The undersigned intends to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the Ruling 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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).
petition, and on July 16, 2020, the undersigned issued her decision dismissing the petition for
insufficient proof. ECF No. 32.
On July 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 34 (“Fees
App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $29,498.65, representing
$22,154.00 in attorneys’ fees and $7,344.65 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. at 1.3 Pursuant to
General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that she has not incurred any out of pocket costs. Id.
at 6. Respondent responded to the motion on November 10, 2020, stating that Respondent “is
satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this
case” and asking the Court to “exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for
attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2-3, ECF No. 39. Petitioner did not file a reply
thereafter.
This matter is now ripe for consideration.
I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . 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)). Second, the court may
make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on
specific findings. Id. at 1348.
It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant
the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and
costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing
records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however,
should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3
F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).
Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate
“in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove
that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.a. Hourly Rate
3
On October 13, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting an
additional $215.80 in costs which had been inadvertently omitted from the first fees motion. ECF No. 38.
The amounts stated here reflect the total requested by both pending motions.
The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges
for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1,
2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The
Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee
Schedules for 2015–2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 can be accessed online.4
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Mr. Andrew
Downing, $385.00 per hour for work performed in 2017-2020; and for Ms. Courtney Van Cott,
$205.00 per hour for work performed in 2018-2019, and $275.00 per hour for work performed
in 2020. These rates are consistent with what Mr. Downing and Ms. Van Cott have previously
been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable
herein. See, e.g., Olschansky v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1096V, 2020 WL
1027681 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 21, 2020).
b. Reasonable Number of Hours
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, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).
Upon review of the submitted billing records, the undersigned finds the majority of the
time billed to be reasonable. The timesheet entries are sufficiently detailed for an assessment to be
made of the entries’ reasonableness. However, a small reduction is necessary due to excessive
paralegal time billed. Paralegals billed time on administrative tasks such as filing documents and
handling payments for medical records. Paralegal time was also excessive for review of filings
(e.g., 0.2 hours to review status reports and scheduling orders). These issues have previously been
raised with the Van Cott & Talamante firm. Sheridan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-
669V, 2019 WL 948371, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019); Moran v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 16-538V, 2019 WL 1556701, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019).
Therefore, a reasonable reduction of $600.00 is being made for excessive billing for paralegal time.
c. Attorney Costs
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests
a total of $7,344.65 in attorneys’ costs, comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, the
Court’s filing fee, and work performed by petitioner’s medical expert in reviewing the records.
Fees App. at 34-36. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation of all these expenses and they
4
The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly rates
contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323.
appear reasonable for the work performed in this case.5 Petitioner is therefore awarded the full
amount of costs sought.
II. Conclusion
In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2012), the undersigned has
reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and
costs, other than the reductions delineated above, is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the
undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and her counsel as follows:
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $22,154.00
(Reduction to Fees) - ($600.00)
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $21,554.00
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $7,344.65
(Reduction of Costs) -
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $7,344.65
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $28,898.65
Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $28,898.65,
representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Andrew Downing.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court is directed to enter judgment herewith.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
5
In finding the requested costs reasonable, the undersigned is not making any determination as to the
reasonableness of the hourly rates of Petitioner’s medical experts. Rather, the undersigned is ruling that
the requested amount is reasonable in light of the work performed in this case.
6
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.