Payne v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 15-0771V
    Filed: June 15, 2016
    UNPUBLISHED
    *********************************
    CARRIE PAYNE,                                     *
    *
    Petitioner,              *
    v.                                                *
    *       Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                               *       Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                               *
    *
    Respondent.              *
    *
    ****************************
    Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
    Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
    Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
    On July 23, 2015, Carrie Payne (“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 a left rotator cuff injury as
    a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 14, 2014. On March 30,
    2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on
    respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 30).
    On May 17, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF
    No. 34). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $16,393.50, and attorneys’
    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    Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.
    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).
    costs in the amount of $2,122.85, for a total amount of $18,516.35. 
    Id. at 2.
    In
    accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner
    incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
    On June 2, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No.
    36). 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 she “is
    satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in
    this case.” 
    Id. at 2.
    Additionally, she “asserts that a reasonable amount for fees and
    costs in the present case would fall between $12,000 to $14,000” citing a number of
    SIRVA cases. 
    Id. at 3.
    On the same day, June 2, 2016, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 37). Petitioner
    argues that respondent has provided “no precise objection” but only “a self-serving”
    survey of what the respondent believes the range for fees and costs in this case should
    be. 
    Id. at 3.
    Petitioner includes a list of the attorneys’ fees and costs awarded
    petitioner’s counsel in SIRVA cases since 2013.
    The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
    request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable.
    Petitioner requests additional attorneys’ fees in the amount of $725.00, (2.5
    hours of time)3 for preparing the reply. 
    Id. at 7
    n.1. Petitioner states that the reply brief
    is not “completely identical to its previously replies to other responses” because
    respondent cited to five cases that formed the basis of her survey and which had to be
    researched and the reply brief modified. Petitioner states that “a proper reduction was
    implemented in this additional request since many of Respondent’s arguments have
    been addressed by Petitioner’s previous Replies.” 
    Id. at 7
    . The undersigned finds the
    request for additional hours spent preparing the reply to be reasonable and awards the
    full amount requested for preparation of the reply brief, $725.00.4 Thus, the total
    amount awarded for attorneys’ fees and costs is $19,241.35.
    The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
    § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned
    GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
    3
    Petitioner billed an additional 2.5 hours of time at Attorney David J. Carney’s rate of $290 x 2.5 hours for
    preparation of the reply brief.
    4
    The undersigned may reduce the attorneys’ fees sought for additional filings of a similar reply in other
    cases.
    2
    Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $19,241.35,5 as a lump
    sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
    Lawrence R. Cohan.
    The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    s/Nora Beth Dorsey
    Nora Beth Dorsey
    Chief Special Master
    5
    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).
    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.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-771

Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey

Filed Date: 8/4/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021