UNPUBLISHED

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

THOMAS L. GOWEN, Special Master.

On October 22, 2015, petitioner Nancy Meramo, as executrix of the estate of Glenn Meramo, filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012).2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccine received on November 14, 2013, Glenn Meramo suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome ("GBS") and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy ("CIDP"), which caused or contributed to his death. Joint Stipulation at ¶¶ 4, 5.

On June 27, 2017, the parties reached a stipulation recommending that compensation be awarded to petitioner, which I approved on the same day. Stipulation Decision (ECF No. 44). Petitioner is therefore entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred in any proceeding on the petition. Section 300aa-15(e).

On August 15, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioner's Motion (ECF No. 50). The motion requests $21,120.90 in attorneys' fees and $7,408.40 in attorneys' costs, for a total request of $28,529.30. Id. at 1. Consistent with General Order #9, the motion includes petitioner's signed statement that she paid $400.00 to counsel to file the claim, but did not incur any other expenses or payments to counsel. Id. at 2-4.

On August 29, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respondent's Response (ECF No. 51). Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs are met in this case. Respondent's Response at 2. Respondent "recommends that the special master exercise his discretion to determine whether an award for attorneys' fees and costs is warranted and, if so, what a reasonable award should be." Respondent's Response at 3. This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

I have reviewed the motion for fees and costs and the supporting documentation. Overall, the request seems reasonable. I find no cause to adjust the time expended or costs. However, it is necessary to reduce the attorneys' hourly rates for work performed in 2017. The motion requests that Mr. Shoemaker receive $446/ hour for work performed in 2017. Petitioner's Motion at 5-6. This is contrary to the Office of Special Masters' fee schedule for 20173 which provides that an attorney with Mr. Shoemaker's experience may appropriately be awarded $394-$440 and no higher. I recently declined to award Mr. Shoemaker this requested rate and instead awarded him the upper limit of $440/ hour. Bookey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-26V, 2017 WL 2544892 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr., May 18, 2017). I will do the same in this case.

Similarly, the motion requests that Ms. Gentry receive $430/ hour for work performed in 2017, which exceeds the applicable range of $358-$424. Petitioner's Motion at 6-7. In Bookey, I also adjusted Ms. Gentry's rate to the upper limit of $424. I will also adjust her rate in this case. The adjustments to Mr. Shoemaker and Ms. Gentry's rates for work performed in 2017 result in a deduction of $71.80 from the fee award.

Accordingly, I award the following:

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment forthwith.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.