In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 18-1266V
                                   Filed: September 27, 2019
                                         UNPUBLISHED


    TINA FURLANO,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.


Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On August 22, 2018, Tina Furlano (“petitioner”) 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 alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she
received on October 4, 2016. Petition at 1. On September 6, 2019, the undersigned
issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the respondent’s
proffer. ECF No. 29.


1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the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).

2
 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
       On September 13, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
ECF No. 34. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $8,381.40 and
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $872.29. 

In compliance with General Order
#9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 33. Thus, the total amount requested is $9,253.69.

        On September 13, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF
No. 34. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13
requires respondent to file a response to a request by a petitioner for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs.” 

Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the
statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.”

Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master exercise
her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” 

       By email correspondence on September 13, 2019, counsel for petitioner notified
the staff attorney managing the case, copying respondents’ counsel, that petitioner did
not intend to file a reply.

      The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate for the
reasons listed below.

       I.     Legal Standard

         The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.§
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., 

, 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., 

, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 

, 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.” 

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., 

, 209 (2009). A special master need not
engaged in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees.
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

, 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 

, 484 (1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” 

n.1. Petitioner’s counsel
                                             2
“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 practice ethically is
obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” 

.

          II.     Attorney Fees

                  A. Hourly Rates

                          i. Paralegal Rates

      Petitioner requests compensation for paralegal Tereza Pavlacsek the rate of
$140 per hour for time billed in 2018. The paralegals of Muller Brazil have previously
been awarded the rate of $125 per hour for time billed in 2018. The undersigned
reduces the 2018 rate for Ms. Pavlacsek to the previously awarded rate of $125 per
hour. This results in a reduction of attorney fees requested in the amount of $28.50.3

                  B. Paralegal Tasks at Attorney Rates

      Upon review of the attorney fee invoices, petitioner requests 1 hour of
compensation for tasks billed by attorney Bridget McCullough that are considered more
paralegal in nature. Examples of these include:

                      •   August 22, 2018 (0.40 hrs) “Format and Prepare Petition and
                          Exhibits for Filing”
                      •   November 8, 2018 (0.10 hr) “File Exhibit 13 on CM/ECF” Records
                          and Exhibit 18”
                      •   September 5, 2019 (1.0 hr) “File Exhibit 14: Workers’
                          Compensation Payments”

ECF No. 34 at 7-8.4

       Attorneys may be compensated for paralegal-level work, but at a rate that is
comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal. See, e.g. Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. XX-XXXV, 

, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
29, 2010) (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 

, 288 (1989)); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 02-10V, 

, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
4, 2016); Riggins. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 99-382V, 

, at
*20-21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009); Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 99-535, 

, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008). The
undersigned reduces the rate for these tasks from the attorney rate of $225 per hour to
the paralegal rate of $125 per hour for 2018 and $140 per hour for tasks billed in 2019.

3   This amount consists of $140 - $125 = $15 x 1.9 hrs = $28.50
4   These are examples and not a comprehensive list.
                                                       3
This results in an overall reduction of attorney fees in the amount of $95.50.5

        III.    Attorney Costs

      Petitioner requests compensation of attorneys’ costs in the amount of $872.29.
The undersigned finds the overall amount of costs reasonable and awards the amount
requested in full.

        IV.     Conclusion

     Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS
IN PART petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

       Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $9,129.696 as a lump sum
in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Bridget Candace McCullough.

        The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                           s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Chief Special Master




5This amount consists of $350 - $75 = $275 x 5.7 hrs = $1,567.50.
6This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would
be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

(Fed. Cir.1991).

7 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.
                                                      4