Filed: Oct. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2016
Summary: UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On July 28, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the "Vaccine Act"). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccination she received on November 7, 2013. On November 4, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petiti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On July 28, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the "Vaccine Act"). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccination she received on November 7, 2013. On November 4, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On July 28, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the "Vaccine Act"). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccination she received on November 7, 2013. On November 4, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties' Stipulation. (ECF No. 38).
On April 22, 2016, petitioner filed an application for attorneys' fees and costs requesting attorneys' fees in the amount of $35,074.50 and attorneys' costs in the amount of $616.98 for a total amount of $35,961.48. (ECF No. 44 at 1).3 In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 44 at 20).
On May 9, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner's application. (ECF No. 45). In her response, 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 she "is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs are met in this case." Id. at 2. Respondent further "asserts that a reasonable amount for fees and costs in the present case would fall between $15,000.00 to $22,000.00" citing four "conceded SIRVA" cases where the stipulated award of attorneys' fees and costs fell within the given range. (Id. at 3.)
On June 27, 2016, the undersigned issued an Order indicating her agreement with the analysis in Stanford v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-1216V, 2016 WL 3176599 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16, 2016) regarding the appropriate hourly rate for the attorneys in petitioner's counsel's law firm. (ECF No. 46). The undersigned further indicated her intent to adopt the Stanford reasoning in this claim and ordered petitioner to file a supplemental application for attorneys' fees and costs utilizing the rates awarded in Stanford.4 (Id.)
On July 26, 2016, petitioner filed a supplemental application for attorneys' fees and costs, utilizing the hourly rates for counsel awarded in Stanford, and requesting attorneys' fees in the amount of $24,860.00 and attorneys' costs in the amount of $616.98 for a total amount of $25,476.98. (ECF No. 49 at 1).
On August 11, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner's supplemental application. (ECF No. 50). In her response, respondent indicates that she "adopts [] her previous response to petitioner's initial fee request, and proffers that a reasonable amount for fees and costs in the present case falls between $15,000.00 and 22,000.00" citing the same four conceded SIRVA cases as cited in her initial response. (ECF No. 50 at 1-2).
On October 7, 2016, petitioner filed supporting evidence for her requested costs. (ECF No. 54). Petitioner's supplemental application for attorneys' fees and costs is now ripe for adjudication.
The undersigned fully agrees with the Stanford analysis regarding appropriate hourly rates for petitioner's counsel, Marvin Firestone and Michal Firestone, and adopts the same reasoning in this case. Furthermore, the undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner's request. In the undersigned's experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the hours or rates requested in petitioner's supplemental application for attorneys' fees and costs.5
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner's request, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner's supplemental application for attorneys' fees and costs.
Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $25,476.986 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner's counsel, Marvin Firestone.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
