Not for Publication

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

LAURA D. MILLMAN, Special Master.

On September 26, 2012, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10-34 (2012). Petitioner alleged she developed rheumatologic disorder, immunologic disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, and other rheumatologic defects as a result of her receipt of the influenza ("flu") vaccine on October 7, 2009. On March 21, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding petitioner damages pursuant to the parties' stipulation.

On October 27, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioner requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $47,406.00, attorneys' costs in the amount of $7,502.06, and personal costs in the amount of $101.25 for a total request of $55,009.31.

On November 2, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion explaining she is satisfied that this case meets the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Resp. at 2. However, respondent argues that her "estimation of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for the present case roughly falls between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00." Id. at 3. Respondent bases this estimate on "a survey of fee awards in similar cases and her experience litigating Vaccine Act claims." Id. Respondent cites two cases in which petitioners were awarded between $40,788.83 and $50,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs which she purports are "similar" to the instant case. Id. These cases both involve stipulated awards of attorneys' fees and costs.

Under the Vaccine Act, a special master or a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims shall award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1); Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S.Ct. 1886, 1893 (2013). The special master has "wide discretion in determining the reasonableness" of attorneys' fees and costs. Perreira v. Sec'y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff'd, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec'y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.").

Respondent bases her range on "experience in similar cases under the Vaccine Act." The undersigned does not find respondent's range persuasive. It is not necessarily instructive to compare cases involving similar procedural histories in order to determine the appropriate amount of attorneys' fees and costs. Each case in the Vaccine Program is different. Even petitioners alleging the same vaccine injury may have vastly dissimilar medical histories, and, consequently, different numbers of medical records petitioners' attorneys need to locate, file, and review.

The top of respondent's proposed range of $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 is only approximately $5,000.00 less than petitioner's request of $55,009.31. Based on her experience and review of the billing records submitted by petitioner, and in light of petitioner's counsel's excellent work and expedited settlement of the case, the undersigned finds that petitioner's total request for attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable.

The undersigned GRANTS petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Accordingly, the court awards:

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.