UNPUBLISHED

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.

On May 6, 2016, 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 related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of receiving the influenza ("flu") vaccine on October 16, 2013. On October 14, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties' joint stipulation. (ECF No. 18).

On November 4, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $15,925.00 and attorneys' costs in the amount of $932.38, for a total amount of $16,857.38. Attachments 1-3 to Petitioner's Motion (ECF No. 22). In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. See Informal Remark (Non-PDF), dated Dec. 12, 2016.

On November 17, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion. (ECF No. 23). 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. Additionally, she "asserts that a reasonable amount for fees and costs in the present case would fall between $12,000.00 and $14,000.00" but provides little explanation for how she arrived at this proposed range, citing only five prior cases that she characterizes as similar. Id. at 3.

On November 22, 2016, petitioner filed a reply and two affidavits from practicing attorneys in support of her application. (ECF No. 24). Petitioner argues "that her request for fees and costs in the amount of $16,857.38 is not unreasonable, as respondent attempts to suggest." Id. at 2. Petitioner "respectfully requests that the court award her fees and costs ... as set forth in her Motion for Fees and Costs." Id. at 1-2. Petitioner did not charge any additional fees for her reply.

In a reasoned decision involving petitioner's counsel issued approximately one year ago, another special master found that the Davis exception applies to the geographical area where petitioner's counsel practices. See Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-1072V, 2015 WL 10435023, at *11-12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 10, 2015). In that decision, the special master determined that an appropriate hourly rate for the work performed by petitioner's counsel in 2015 was $315. Id. at *12. The undersigned agrees with and adopts the reasoning in Gonzalez regarding the application of local attorney rates when determining appropriate hourly rates for petitioner's counsel. However, the undersigned finds that the hourly rate requested by petitioner, $350, is an appropriate local rate.

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 requested hours or rates.

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 motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.