UNPUBLISHED

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

THOMAS L. GOWEN, Special Master.

On October 12, 2016, Lisa Lebron ("petitioner"), on behalf of L.L., a minor child, filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that L.L. suffered from reactive inflammatory arthritis as a result of DTaP, MMR, polio, and varicella vaccines administered on March 8, 2014. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 12, [ECF No. 1]; Stipulation at ¶¶ 1,4, [ECF No. 34]. On February 9, 2018, I issued a decision awarding petitioner compensation based on the parties' stipulation. Decision on Stipulation, [ECF No. 35].

On February 27, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Pet. Motion, [ECF No. 39]. Petitioner requests a total of $29,333.20 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees and $1,912.42 as reimbursement for costs. Pet. Motion at ¶¶ 3, 6. Thus, petitioner requests a total of $31,245.62 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees and costs. Id. at ¶ 9. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner's counsel filed a statement representing that petitioner has not incurred any costs in pursuit of this claim. Pet. Ex. 17.

On March 1, 2018, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion. Resp. Resp., [ECF No. 40]. Respondent argues that "[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys' fees and costs." Id. at 1. Further, respondent "is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs are met in this case." Id. at 2. Respondent "respectfully recommends that the Special Master exercise his discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys' fees and costs." Id. at 3.

On March 1, 2018, petitioner filed a reply to respondent's response. Pet. Reply, [ECF No. 41]. Petitioner argues that respondent provided no precise objection to her motion and that she has met her burden of establishing that she is entitled to an award of reasonable fees and costs. Id. at 2-4.

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

The hourly rates requested by petitioner's counsel are well within the range of hourly rates I found reasonable for an attorney of her experience in McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), and I have previously found her requested hourly rates for 2015-2017 to be reasonable. Proctor v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1412V, 2018 WL 945858 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 26, 2018). As the hourly rate requested by petitioner's counsel for 2018 is also within the appropriate McCulloch range for an attorney of her experience, I also find her 2018 rate of $396 per hour to be reasonable.

I have reviewed the billing records and invoices submitted with petitioner's motion. The billing entries reflect the nature of each task performed, the amount of time expended, and the person performing each task. The expenses incurred are well-documented and based on my experience they appear reasonable. I find no cause to adjust the time expended or the costs. Thus, the requested attorneys' fees and costs are awarded in full.

In accordance with the foregoing, petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED.

Accordingly, I award the following:

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.