Briggs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1507V

JENNA BRIGGS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: February 28, 2024

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Jessica Ann Wallace, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.

Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

On June 24, 2021, Jenna Briggs 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as a result of an influenza vaccination she received on November 8, 2018. Petition, ECF No. 1. On October 20, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 39.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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 inf ormation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If , upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material f rom public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all section ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $44,376.50 (representing $43,797.60 in fees plus $578.90 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed Nov. 14, 2023, ECF No. 43. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.

Respondent reacted to the motion on Nov. 16, 2023, reporting that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 44. Petitioner filed a reply reiterating the request for fees and costs as indicated in the Motion. ECF No. 45.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons stated below.

ANALYSIS

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 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. See 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. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “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 2 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.

ATTORNEY FEES A. Attorney Hourly Rates

Petitioner requests hourly rates for attorneys performing work in this matter as follows:

2020 2021 2022 2023 Jessica A. Wallace, Esq. X $241 $275 $285 Daisy Mazoff, Esq. X X $375 $389 Debra Gambella, Esq. X $380 $394 $409

The requested rate for Attorney Wallace is reasonable and consistent with prior determinations and will therefore be awarded herein. The rates requested for Attorneys Mazoff and Gambella require adjustment.

Attorney Mazoff was awarded the rate of $375 per hour and Attorney Gambella the rate of $380 per hour, for all time billed in the 2022-23 timeframe, less than what is being requested herein. See W.R., v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1401, Slip Op, 60 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 23, 2023). Retroactive rate increases are not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g. Ramirez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16- 1180V, 2019 WL 948385, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2019) (noting that counsel “should only submit billing logs that reflect the hourly rate previously awarded to him.”). I find no reason to deviate from these previously established rates, and therefore reduce the 2022-23 rates to be consistent with W.R. Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded herein by $509.60. 3

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $43,866.90 (representing $43,288.00 in fees plus $578.90 in attorney’s costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Jessica Wallace. In the absence of a

3 This amount consists of : ($389 - $375 = $14 x 0.40 hrs) + ($394 - $380 = $14 x 15.70 hrs) + ($409 - $380 = $29 x 9.80 hrs) = $509.60 3 timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4