Price v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided July 9, 2020·No. 18-1472·Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 15, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * JEREMY PRICE and GINA PRICE, * natural parents of J.P., a minor, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioners, * No. 18-1472V * v. * Special Master Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Carol L. Gallagher, Carol L. Gallagher, Esquire LLC, Somers Point, NJ, for petitioner. Julia Marter Collison, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On September 25, 2018, Jeremy Price and Gina Price (“petitioners”), as natural parents of J.P., a minor, filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Program2 alleging that as a result of the Haemophilus influenzae type B (“Hib”) and pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV 13”) vaccines J.P. received on August 9, 2016, he suffers from neutropenia. Petition at 1.

On May 7, 2020, petitioners filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting compensation for the attorney who worked on their case. Petitioners’ Motion for

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims’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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 1 Interim Fees and Costs (“Pet. Mot.”), dated May 7, 2020 (ECF No. 56). Petitioners’ request can be summarized as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees – $50,421.00 Attorneys’ Costs – $44,405.70

Petitioners thus request a total of $94,826.70. Respondent filed his response on May 8, 2020, stating that he “defers to the Special Master as to whether petitioners are entitled to an interim award of attorneys’ fees and costs at this time.” Respondent’s Response to Pet. Mot. (“Resp. Response”), dated May 8, 2020, at 3 (ECF No. 57).

This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioners’ motion and awards $88,303.99 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

I. DISCUSSION

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. § 15(e)(1). When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable fees and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. If a special master has not yet determined entitlement, she may still award attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Such awards “are particularly appropriate in cases where proceedings are protracted and costly experts must be retained.” Id. Similarly, it is proper for a special master to award interim fees and costs “[w]here the claimant establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists a good faith basis for the claim.” Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

The claim appears at this point to have been brought in good faith and built on a reasonable basis. Moreover, the undersigned finds that an award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs is appropriate here where there are significant expert fees to be paid.

A. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349. Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys’ fee 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)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at 1348.

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

2 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 the 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 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Act and its attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991), rev’d on other grounds and aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours claimed in attorney fee requests . . . [v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521.

Here, petitioners request the following hourly rates for the attorney who worked on this matter:

Ms. Gallagher – Attorney 2017: $363.00 2018-2019: $400.00 2020: $424.00

The undersigned finds that the requested rates are reasonable and in accordance with what this attorney has previously been awarded for her Vaccine Program work. See, e.g., Cetlin- Salter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-792V, 2019 WL 4880164, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Price v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2020).

Price v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Price v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related