Robinson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

CORRECTED

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1378

Filed: August 30, 2024

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * RIVIAN ROBINSON, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

On October 13, 2020, Rivian Robinson (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018).2 Petitioner alleges that she developed transverse myelitis after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 21, 2017. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). On July 18, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on July 19, 2023. (ECF No. 60).

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 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 (2018). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

On January 19, 2024, petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by counsel at Conway Homer, P.C. and by petitioner’s prior counsel at Muller Brazil. (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 66). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $58,958.08, representing $46,606.30 in attorneys’ fees and $2,551.00 in costs incurred by Conway Homer, PC, and $9,657.70 in attorneys’ fees and $143.08 in costs incurred by Muller Brazil. Fees App. at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner indicated she has not expended any fees or costs in pursuit of her claim for compensation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on January 22, 2024, stating “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting that the undersigned “exercise [her] discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Response at 2-3 (ECF No. 68). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Legal Framework

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, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Federal Circuit has endorsed the use of the lodestar approach to determine what constitutes “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs” under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys' fees” is calculated 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)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward based on other specific findings. Id.

Special masters have substantial discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing petitioners with notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). Special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner's fee application when reducing fees. See Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

II. Discussion

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for

3

the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of petitioner's attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorney's fees to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys' fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years.3

1. Conway Homer, P.C.

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel at Conway, Homer, P.C.:

2020 2021 2022 2023 Ronald Homer $447 $447 $475 $500 Christina Ciampolilo $380 $380 $425 $470 Joseph Pepper $355 $355 $415 $455 Lauren Faga $330 - $385 - Meridith Daniels $350 $350 $410 - Nathaniel Enos - - - $320 Patrick Kelly - $225 $250 $305

Fees App. Ex. A. 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.

2. Muller Brazil

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her previous counsel at Muller Brazil:

2018 2019 2020

Paul Brazil $317 $325 $350 Leigh Finfer - $185 - Bridget McCullough - - $250

3 The Fee Schedules can be accessed at http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

4

These rates are also consistent with what counsel has previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.

B. Hours Reasonably Expended

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 ex rel. 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)). “Unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691, 703 (2016). While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–243V, 2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015). Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g., McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at onehalf of the normal hourly attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–756V, 2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And “it is inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 14–1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Ultimately, 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.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 728– 29 (affirming the Special Master’s reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).

1. Conway Homer, P.C.

Upon review, the undersigned finds the majority of the hours billed to be reasonable.

However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for review of status reports prepared by other attorneys. The undersigned notes that it is common practice for Conway, Homer, P.C. to have several attorneys assist over the course of a case. In some instances, such as when preparing substantive documents like the petition, briefs, and settlement demands, it is reasonable to have another set of eyes review that document. However, it is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review routine filings, such as status reports and motions for enlargement of time, when those filings were prepared (and billed for) by another attorney. This is not the first time the undersigned or other special masters have noted this particular issue concerning Conway, Homer, P.C. billing practices. See, e.g., Manetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). A reduction of $726.50 shall be made to address this issue.

5

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a final award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $45,879.80 for the work of her counsel at Conway, Homer, P.C.

2. Muller Brazil

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours spent on this matter appear are reasonable. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a final award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $9,657.70 for the work of her counsel at Muller Brazil.

C. Reasonable Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.

Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992).

1. Conway Homer, P.C.

Petitioner requests a total of $2,551.00 in costs for her counsel at Conway, Homer, P.C. for acquiring medical records, postage, copies, client visit costs including flight, hotel, meals, and ground transportation, and the Court’s filing fee. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the requested costs and all appear reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs of $2,551.00.

2. Muller Brazil

Petitioner requests a total of $143.08 in costs for her counsel at Muller Brazil for acquiring medical records. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the requested costs and all appear reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs of $143.08.

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED. The undersigned hereby awards the following:

1) A lump sum of $48,430.80, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’

fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Mr. Ronald Craig Homer.

2) A lump sum in the amount of $9,800.78, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner and his counsel, Muller Brazil.

6

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).