Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Freedman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-1357V. (2017)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20180215b08 Visitors: 28
Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On October 18, 2016, Douglas A. Freedman ("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" or "Program"). On September 7, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent's proffer to which petitioner agreed. (ECF No. 29). On October 2, 2017
More

UNPUBLISHED

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

On October 18, 2016, Douglas A. Freedman ("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" or "Program"). On September 7, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent's proffer to which petitioner agreed. (ECF No. 29).

On October 2, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ("Pet. Motion") (ECF No. 32). Petitioner requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $13,644.10 and attorneys' costs in the amount of $817.63. Id. at 1. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. Thus, the total amount requested is $14,461.73.

On October 11, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner's motion. (ECF No. 33.) 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. Petitioner seeks an amount for attorneys' fees which reflect the following hourly rates, to include increased rates for 2017:

Ed Kraus (Attorney) $389.00 for 2016 $398.00 for 2017 Amy Kraus (Attorney) $318.00 for 2017 Tara O'Mahoney (Attorney) $275.00 for 2016 $281.00 for 2017

See Tab A to Pet. Motion at 4-11. Additionally, some of the work performed by Ms. Kraus and Ms. O'Mahoney is billed at a paralegal hourly rate, $125.00. See id. at 4-7, 9.

The rates requested are within the ranges of forum rates in the schedules found on the court's website3 which are based upon the ranges of forum rates set forth in McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).4 Additionally, petitioner's counsel has appropriately billed at a reduced paralegal rate for work that could be performed by a paralegal.5 The undersigned finds the rates requested, including the increased 2017 amounts, to be appropriate hourly rates for work performed by the attorneys in this case. In the undersigned's experience, petitioner's 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.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $14,461.736 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner's counsel, Edward M. Kraus.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.
2. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).
3. See http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2015-2016.pdf (last visited on Aug. 9, 2017) (for the OSM's 2015-16 Fee Schedule); http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2017.pdf (last visited on Aug. 9, 2017) (OSM's 2017 Fee Schedule).
4. Although the parties in McCulloch did not seek review, much of the reasoning of the McCulloch decision was later examined approvingly in Garrison v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-762V, 128 Fed. Cl. 99 (2016).
5. "Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney's rate." Riggins v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). "[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed." Doe/11 v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010).
6. This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, "advanced costs" as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
7. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties' joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer