(NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)

DECISION GRANTING FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS1

BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Chief Special Master.

On July 21, 2017, Sara Torres-Ruiz filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program").2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome ("GBS") as a result of the influenza vaccine she received on November 6, 2014. Id. at 1. In March 2018, the parties began engaging in settlement negotiations. See Mot. to Suspend Deadline at 1, filed Mar. 13, 2018 (ECF No. 12). The parties filed a stipulation for award on March 14, 2019, which I adopted as my Decision awarding damages on the next day. (ECF No. 27).

Petitioner has now filed a motion requesting an award of final attorney's fees and costs. See Motion dated September 11, 2019 (ECF No. 32) ("Fees App."). Petitioner requests a total award of $40,794.98 (representing $31,743.00 in fees, plus $9,051.98 in costs to Anapol Weiss). Fees App. at 3. Respondent reacted to the motion on September 16, 2019, indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney's fees and costs are met in this case, and deferring to my discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. Response, ECF No. 33, at 2-3.

For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT Petitioner's motion in part, awarding final attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $40,254.98.3

ANALYSIS

Vaccine Program attorneys are entitled to a fees award in successful cases like this one. Determining the appropriate amount of that award is a two-part process. The first part involves application of the lodestar method — "multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate." Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)).4 The second part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down to take relevant factors into consideration. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. This standard for calculating a fee award is considered applicable in most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-37 (1983).

Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for her attorneys and other legal professionals:

Fees App. at 2-3.

I have previously considered the rates of the same attorneys and legal professionals representing Petitioner in this case and found them mostly reasonable. See Marquis v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 15-659V, 2017 WL 2461372, at *1-2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25, 2017) (reducing rate of Mr. Carney for work done during 2014-2017 from $290 per hour to $275 per hour); Barton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-508V, 2017 WL 6334787, at *1-2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 16, 2017) (finding paralegal hourly rate of $135 for work performed in 2016 reasonable, finding Mr. Carney's hourly rate of $290 for work performed in 2017 reasonable, and reducing Mr. Carney's hourly rate to $275 for work performed in 2016). Moreover, the requested rates are consistent with what other special masters have recently awarded. See, e.g., Charneco v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-458V, 2019 WL 3753290, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2019) (finding similar hourly rates of Mr. Carney ($275-$315), Mr. Cohan ($400-$450), and paralegals ($135) "consistent with what they have previously been awarded"); Shorkey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-768V, 2017 WL 2119118, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 21, 2017) (finding the hourly rates of Mr. Carney ($290), Mr. Cohan ($400), and a paralegal ($125) reasonable).5

One rate requested does merit adjustment. Petitioner requests that Mr. Carney receive an hourly rate of $290.00 for work performed in October 2016. I have, however, previously reduced Mr. Carney's hourly rate "to $275.00 for work performed in 2016." See Barton, 2017 WL 6334787, at *1. Accordingly, I will also in this matter reduce Mr. Carney's hourly rate to $275.00 for work performed in 2016. This results in a total reduction of $1.50. Aside from this reduction, I find that Petitioner's requested rates are reasonable, consistent with my decisions, decisions of other special masters, and within the range of the Office of Special Masters' fee schedule, and I award them in full.

The next matter to address is the reasonableness of the hours expended on this case. Minor issues necessitate a small reduction in the total amount of fees awarded. It is well-settled that billing for administrative and/or clerical work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. See Arranga v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-1616V, 2018 WL 2770820, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018); Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (Cl. Ct. 1989). For example, I have previously reduced the amount billed when paralegals spend time on administrative tasks like "receiving and preparing records to be reviewed by an attorney or law clerk [], duplicative review of filings by two attorneys," and vague entries in the billing record. Bacon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-271V, 2019 WL 3753276, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 16, 2019). Here, Petitioner's counsel's paralegal repeatedly bills for time receiving and saving documents. E.g., Fees App., Ex. A, entries 124, 126, 128. These billing entries are frequently for 0.1 or 0.2 hours. Id. Reviewing the billing statement reveals twenty-two entries, totaling four hours at an $135.00 hourly rate, which bill for the receipt and saving of documents or records. See generally Fees App. Accordingly, I will reduce the Petitioner's hours billed by four hours, resulting in a reduction of $540.00. This results in total attorney's fees of $31,201.50.

Finally, I will turn to costs. Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Perreira v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992); Presault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667, 670 (Fed. Cl. 2002). Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while working on a case. Fester v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at *16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). When petitioners fail to carry their burden, such as by not providing appropriate documentation to substantiate a requested cost, special masters have refrained from awarding the costs. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).

Petitioner requests $9,051.98 in overall costs. Fees App at 3. This amount is comprised of obtaining medical records, postage charges, expert costs and the Court's filing fee, all of which were incurred by counsel's firm. Fees App. at 3; see generally Fees App, Ex. C. About half of these costs are related to Petitioner's expert—Hurley Consulting. Fees App. at 46. Besides a $750.00 retainer, Hurley Consulting billed at an hourly rate of $125.00. Hurley Consulting has been employed by Petitioner's counsel in other cases. See, e.g., Snyder v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-0028V, 2018 WL 4177522, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 27, 2018) (finding costs of Hurley Consulting reasonable in another case where a petitioner alleged an influenza vaccine caused her GBS). Upon review I find costs associated with Hurley Consulting reasonable considering the needs of the case. Furthermore, I have reviewed all other requested costs and find them reasonable. Petitioner is therefore entitled to final attorney's costs of $9,051.98.

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to prevailing petitioners. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). Accordingly, I award the following:

the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Anapol Weiss.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.