UNPUBLISHED

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

THOMAS L. GOWEN, Special Master.

On September 1, 2015, Damacio Chewiwi ("petitioner")2 filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.3 Petitioner received an influenza ("flu") vaccination in the United States. Petitioner alleged that he subsequently suffered NMDA receptor encephalitis, which he alleged was caused-in-fact by his receipt of the flu vaccination. Petition (ECF No. 1). On March 28, 2018, I issued a decision awarding petitioner compensation based on the parties' stipulation. Decision on Stipulation (ECF No. 74).

Also on March 28, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioner's ("Pet.") Motion (ECF No. 75). Petitioner requests $32,766.50 in attorneys' fees and $15,181.80 in attorneys' costs, for a total request of $47.948.30 in attorneys' fees and costs. Id. at 1. Petitioner's counsel states, pursuant to General Order #9, that petitioner did not personally incur any expenses associated with this claim. Rather, all expenses were borne by his counsel. Id. at 2.

On April 3, 2018, respondent filed a response to the motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respondent's Response (ECF No. 79). 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. Further, respondent "is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs are met in this case." Id. at 2. Respondent "respectfully requests that the Special Master exercise his discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys' fees and costs." Id. at 3.

On April 3, 2018, petitioner's counsel emailed my law clerk to communicate that petitioner would not be submitting a reply.

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

Upon review, I find that the hourly rates requested in this motion are reasonable.4 Mr. Downing and his firm have repeatedly found to be "in-forum" and therefore entitled to the forum rates I first formulated in McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 4634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).5 Most of the rates requested are consistent with what has been found to be reasonable and awarded in other cases. See, e.g., Frette v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-1105V, 2018 WL 945742 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 22, 2018). The only difference is petitioner's request that Mr. Downing receive an increased hourly rate of $385 for work performed in 2018. In Frette, I deferred determining whether this was a reasonable rate, because it was only billed for one time entry and the Office of Special Masters had not yet posted a rate schedule for 2018. Upon further review, I specifically approve and will award this increased rate.

I have reviewed the billing records and invoices submitted with petitioner's motion. The billing entries reflect the nature of the task performed, the amount of time expended, and the person performing each task. The expenses incurred are well-documented and based on my experience, they appear reasonable. I find no cause to adjust the time expended or the costs. Thus, the requested attorneys' fees and costs are awarded in full.

In accordance with the foregoing, petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED. 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.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.