Swanson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-558V
Filed: February 22, 2017
Not for Publication
*************************************
LORRAINE SWANSON, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Attorneys’ fees and costs decision;
v. * reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
*************************************
Ronald C. Homer, Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Amy P. Kokot, Washington, DC, for respondent.
MILLMAN, Special Master
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1
On June 1, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that her receipt of the
influenza vaccine on December 20, 2012 caused her to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome. On
September 13, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding damages pursuant to the parties’
stipulation.
On February 8, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting
attorneys’ fees in the amount of 27,953.50 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $3,090.82, for a
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this
case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all
decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or
commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information
whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is
filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document=s
disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned
categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.
total request of $31,044.32. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel stated
petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuing her claim.
On February 22, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion explaining that he
is satisfied this case meets the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Resp. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends
that the [undersigned] exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees
and costs.” Id. at 3.
Under the Vaccine Act, a special master or a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of
compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1); Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1893 (2013).
The special master has “wide discretion in determining the reasonableness” of attorneys’ fees and
costs. Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
see also Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Vaccine
program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee
applications.”).
Based on her experience and review of the billing records submitted by petitioner, the
undersigned finds that petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs request is reasonable. Therefore, the
undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Accordingly, the
court awards $31,044.32, representing attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form
of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and Conway, Homer, P.C. in the amount of
$31,044.32.
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. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2017 s/ Laura D. Millman
Laura D. Millman
Special Master
2
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2