NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On November 2, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,
On October 10, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. ECF No. 41. Petitioner requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,735.00 and attorneys' costs in the amount of $858.87. Id. at 1. In addition, petitioner requests attorney fees in the amount of $2,016.65 and $203.07 in attorney costs incurred by prior counsel, Richard W. Crowder. Due to Mr. Hosrt's passing on September 9, 2018, his spouse Viola Horst filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in compliance with General Order #9. ECF No. 42. Thus, the total amount requested is $10,813.59.
On October 19, 2018, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion. ECF No. 43. 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. Respondent adds, however, that he "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 Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys' fees and costs." Id. at 3.
Petitioner has filed no reply.
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner's request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate for the reasons listed below.
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., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 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., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 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." Id. at 1522. 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., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 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., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 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 Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. at 482, 484 (1991). She "should present adequate proof [of the attorneys' fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission." Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner's counsel "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." Hensley, 461 U.S., at 434.
In the Vaccine Program, special masters traditionally have compensated time spent traveling when no other work was being performed at one-half an attorney's hourly rate. See Hocraffer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011 WL 3705153, at *24 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 25, 2011); Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 27, 2009); English v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 01-61V, 2006 WL 3419805, at *12-13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2006). However, special masters should not use this rule as standard practice but rather "[e]ach case should be assessed on its own merits." Gruber v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 91 Fed. Cl. 773, 791 (2010). "Even an automatic 50% award may be too high for an undocumented claim, given the possibility that an attorney may use the travel time to work on another matter or not to work at all while traveling." Id.
Attorney Daniel Pfeifer billed 2 hours listed as "Travel" on November 10, 2015. ECF No. 41-1 at 2. The billing entry does not state that the time spent traveling was used to work on any other matters or if it was billed at half rate. Due to the vague entry the undersigned will reduce the time spent listed as "travel" by 50 percent. This is a reduction of $400.00.
Petitioner requests reimbursement for costs incurred from by Daniel Pfeifer in the amount of $858.87 and costs incurred by Richard Croweder in the amount of $203.07. ECF No. 44 at 2. After reviewing petitioner's invoices, the undersigned finds no cause to reduce petitioner's' request and awards the full amount of attorney costs sought.
Based on the reasonableness of petitioner's request, the undersigned
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.