NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On May 13, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.,
On August 8, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. (ECF No. 36.) Petitioner requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $16,427.30 and attorneys' costs in the amount of $594.07. (Id. at 1.) In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, the total amount requested is $17,021.37.
On August 10, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion. (ECF No. 37.) 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 he "is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs are met in this case." (Id. at 2.) Respondent "respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys' fees and costs." (Id. at 3.)
Petitioner has filed no reply.
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. However, the undersigned finds it necessary to reduce petitioner's requested costs.
Petitioner "bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred." Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 1991). She "should present adequate proof [of the attorneys' fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission." Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner's counsel "should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission." Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). Although not explicitly stated in the statute, the requirement that only reasonable amounts be awarded applies to costs as well as fees. See Perreira v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff'd, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner seeks $59.00 for "6/27/2016 Payment to IK [petitioner's counsel, Isaiah Kalinowski] to reimburse for Luncheon Meeting with Client at The Hamilton" (ECF No. 36-3 at 1), a check and credit card receipt from The Hamilton, located in Washington, DC, dated June 20, 2016 and initialed by petitioner's counsel is provided (ECF No. 36-3 at 1). Petitioner's counsel's time log indicates that on June 20, 2016 he "[met] with client to introduce the Vaccine Program, to explore sources of damages, and to plan next steps to prosecute Petition." (ECF 36-2 at 4). However, petitioner's counsel fails to explain why this cost is reasonable. The undersigned finds that, as is consistent with this Court's practice, it is not reasonable to reimburse petitioners' counsel for the cost of meals and other miscellaneous expenses on typical work days in the area where he normally works and resides. See Reginelli v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-972V, 2016 WL 1161309, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 1, 2016). Accordingly, petitioner's requested costs are reduced by $59.00.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. § 15(e).
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.