(Not to be Published)

DECISION GRANTING FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS1

BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Special Master.

Petitioner filed this case on October 19, 2011, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the "Vaccine Program"),2 alleging that the hepatitis A and meningococcal vaccines caused her to suffer from transverse myelitis. Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1. An entitlement hearing was held on February 9-10, 2017, and I thereafter denied entitlement by Decision, dated October 6, 2017 (ECF No. 128). Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Review resulted in a remand, but I denied compensation a second time (see Decision, dated July 2, 2018 (ECF No. 136)), and a second Motion for Review was unsuccessful.

Petitioner has now submitted a final request for costs and/or attorney's fees. Motion, dated April 3, 2019 (ECF No. 145) ("Mot."). It is the last of four such requests that have been made over the course of this matter's life. See ECF Nos. 50 (January 2014 judgment awarding $24,695.37 in fees and costs), 94 (August 2016 judgment awarding $19,740.00 in fees and costs), and 127 (October 2017 judgment awarding $29,552.21 in fees and costs). Importantly for purposes of the present fees request, Petitioner's third request sought approximately $112,000.00 in attorney's fees incurred on the matter from December 2015 through August 2017, but I declined to include fees in the interim award, anticipating that there was a strong possibility of post-adjudication attorney work that would result in more fees, and taking into account the fact that Petitioner had already received two interim awards before that time. See Decision, dated October 6, 2017 (ECF No. 128).

In the present motion, Petitioner requests a total award of $141,935.61, reflecting $137,164.05 in attorney's fees, plus $4,771.56 in costs. Mot. at 6. The fees reflect the work of counsel Bruce Slane, Esq., and other attorneys working with him on the matter, and includes the time previously requested in Petitioner's third interim request but now extending through this year and the recent filing of the final fees motion. See Tab A to Mot. (ECF No. 145-1). The requested costs largely seem to reflect expenses incurred in connection with the hearing and/or subsequent appeals. See Tab B to Mot. (ECF No. 145-2).3 In addition, Petitioner has included a declaration under General Order No. 9 stating that she has not personally incurred any additional costs. See Tab C to Mot. (ECF No. 145-3). Respondent reacted to the final fees and costs request on April 5, 2019, deferring the resolution of the matter to my discretion. ECF No. 148.

Analysis

A petitioner may receive a fees award even if his claim fails, but to do so he must demonstrate the claim's reasonable basis through some objective evidentiary showing and in light of the "totality of the circumstances," including all facts relevant to the to the case. See Chuisano v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 286 (2014) (citing McKellar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 303, 303 (2011)). Here, I find that Petitioner's claim unquestionably possessed objective grounds, despite the fact that it was ultimately unsuccessful. Accordingly, a fees award is appropriate.

Calculating a reasonable fees and costs award is a two-part process. The first part involves application of the lodestar method — "multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended4 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)). 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's fee application includes attorney billing records that indicate that Mr. Slane and several other associates (plus some firm paralegals and law clerks) performed the legal work in this case based on varying rates between 2015 and 2019. See Tab A to Mot. I have determined in prior cases that Mr. Slane is entitled to forum rates, and I find herein as well that the hourly rates requested are reasonable, and in accordance with the Vaccine Program forum-rate guidelines. See, e.g., Sotirhos v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-290V, 2019 WL 410350 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2019); Grant v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1446V, 2018 WL 5832137 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 18, 2018). The above-noted requested rates are also in keeping with the Rate Guidelines established by the Office of Special Masters.5 I will award the rates requested herein without reduction.6 I also find that the work performed on this matter was appropriate, and will therefore award all time billed. In addition, the costs expended on this matter by Petitioner and counsel also appear to be reasonable, and will be awarded in full.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining the propriety of a fees awards, and based on the foregoing, I hereby GRANT Petitioner's motion, and award a total of $141,935.61, in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Bruce Slane, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this decision.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.