DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

HERBRINA D. SANDERS, Special Master.

On September 6, 2017, Ann Fly ("petitioner") filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). The petition alleged that the influenza and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines that petitioner received on September 15, 2014, and September 25, 2015, caused her to suffer from systemic inflammatory response syndrome ("SIRS"). See Stip. at 1, ECF No. 29. On November 30, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for award of compensation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding damages on December 3, 2018. Decision, ECF No. 30.

On February 4, 2019, petitioner filed an application for attorneys' fees and costs. ECF No. 36 ("Fees App."). Petitioner requests total attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $22,695.07 (representing $19,736.20 in fees and $2,958.87 in costs). Fees App. at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated that she has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on February 15, 2019, indicating that he "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." Resp't's Resp. at 2-3 (ECF No. 37). Petitioner filed a reply on February 15, 2019, reiterating her belief that the amount requested for attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable. Pet'r's Reply, ECF No. 38.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. § 15(e). 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 & Human 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 & Human 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.

Special masters can reduce a fee request sua sponte, without providing petitioners notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (Fed. Cl. 2009). When determining the relevant fee reduction, special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioners' fee application. Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Instead, they may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (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 . . . Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications." Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521.

a. Hourly Rates

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 & Human 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 for 2015-2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 can be accessed online.3

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for the work of her attorney, Ms. Danielle Strait: $307.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $322.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, and $340.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 17. These rates are consistent with what Ms. Strait has been awarded for her work in the Vaccine Program. See Kratzer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1209V, 2019 WL 1806626, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 6, 2019). Accordingly, no adjustment to the requested rates is necessary. However, the billing records indicate that Ms. Strait billed 0.5 hours in 2017 at $320.00 per hour as well. Fees App. Ex. 1 at 17. The undersigned will compensate Ms. Strait for these hours at $307.00 per hour as previously established, resulting in a reduction of $6.50.

b. Hours 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, 3 F.3d at 1521.

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed (82.1) 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. Respondent has also not indicated that he finds any of the billing entries to be unreasonable. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys' fees in the amount of $19,729.70.

c. Attorneys' 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). Petitioner requests a total of $2,958.87 in attorneys' costs. This amount comprises the cost of obtaining medical records, mailing costs, and the Court's filing fee. All the costs appear reasonable in the undersigned's experience and petitioner has provided adequate documentation for them. Petitioner is thus entitled to the full amount of costs sought.

II. Conclusion

Based on all the above, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to the following award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs:

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that petitioner's request for fees and costs, other than those reductions delineated above, is reasonable. Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

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.