In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 20, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TIFFANY CURRY, as parent and natural * No. 20-2057V guardian of infant, J.B. * * Special Master Sanders Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner; Austin Joel Egan, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On December 30, 2020, Tiffany Curry (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2018)2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleged that her child, J.B., suffered from various injuries including a right frontal intraparenchymal hemorrhage secondary to a ruptured arteriovenous malformation, facial droop, extremity paralysis, brain compression, intracranial hypertension, encephalomalacia, subglottic stenosis, dysphasia, aphasia, and significant aggravation of arteriovenous malformation due to a measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) and/or a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered on January 3, 2018. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On June 26, 2023, I issued my decision denying entitlement and dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 36).
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 information, 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 from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. On November 15, 2023, Petitioner filed a final motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [hereinafter “Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”], ECF No. 40. Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $30,230.08, representing $28,705.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,524.58 in attorneys’ costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of her petition. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Tab C. Respondent responded to the motion on December 8, 2023, stating that Respondent “is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, ECF No. 41. Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for consideration.
I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, although the petition was eventually dismissed, I am satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been met in the instant case. Respondent has also indicated he is satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been met. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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.
2 A. Hourly Rate
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 & Hum. 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 can be accessed online.3
Petitioner requests the following rates for the work of his counsel: for Mr. Bruce Slane, $365.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $425.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Mr. Jeremy Barberi, $300.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $335.00 per hour for work performed in 2021; and for Mr. Christian Martinez, $225.00 per hour for time billed in 2020, $235.00 per hour for time billed in 2021, and $265.00 per hour for time billed in 2022. These rates are consistent with what counsel has previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.
B. Reasonable Number of Hours
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 20, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TIFFANY CURRY, as parent and natural * No. 20-2057V guardian of infant, J.B. * * Special Master Sanders Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner; Austin Joel Egan, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On December 30, 2020, Tiffany Curry (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (2018)2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleged that her child, J.B., suffered from various injuries including a right frontal intraparenchymal hemorrhage secondary to a ruptured arteriovenous malformation, facial droop, extremity paralysis, brain compression, intracranial hypertension, encephalomalacia, subglottic stenosis, dysphasia, aphasia, and significant aggravation of arteriovenous malformation due to a measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) and/or a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered on January 3, 2018. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. On June 26, 2023, I issued my decision denying entitlement and dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 36).
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 information, 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 from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. On November 15, 2023, Petitioner filed a final motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [hereinafter “Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”], ECF No. 40. Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $30,230.08, representing $28,705.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,524.58 in attorneys’ costs. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of her petition. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Tab C. Respondent responded to the motion on December 8, 2023, stating that Respondent “is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, ECF No. 41. Petitioner did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for consideration.
I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, although the petition was eventually dismissed, I am satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been met in the instant case. Respondent has also indicated he is satisfied that good faith and reasonable basis have been met. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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.
2 A. Hourly Rate
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 & Hum. 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 can be accessed online.3
Petitioner requests the following rates for the work of his counsel: for Mr. Bruce Slane, $365.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, $375.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $400.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, and $425.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Mr. Jeremy Barberi, $300.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $335.00 per hour for work performed in 2021; and for Mr. Christian Martinez, $225.00 per hour for time billed in 2020, $235.00 per hour for time billed in 2021, and $265.00 per hour for time billed in 2022. These rates are consistent with what counsel has previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.
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)). It is well-established that billing for administrative or clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See e.g., Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (stating that services that are “primarily of a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates”); see also Isom v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 94-770, 2001 WL 101459, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2001) (agreeing with Respondent that tasks such as filing and photocopying are subsumed under overhead expenses); Walters v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2022 WL 1077311, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2022) (failing to award fees for the review of CM/ECF notifications and the organization of the file); McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26 (noting that clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them).
Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be reasonable. Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed, and upon review, the undersigned does not find any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $28,705.50.
C. Costs
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests
3 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.
3 a total of $1,524.58 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, and process server fees. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC, Ex. B. These costs have been supported with the necessary documentation and are reasonable. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,524.58.
II. Conclusion
In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2018), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows:
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $28,705.50 (Reduction to Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $28,705.50
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $1,524.58 (Reduction to Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $1,524.58
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $30,230.08
Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $30,230.08, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Bruce W. Slane.
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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master
4 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.