In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1074V
                                   Filed: November 19, 2018
                                        UNPUBLISHED


    MICHAEL WALLACE,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.


Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Ann Donohue Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On August 8, 2017, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 15, 2016.
Petition at 1. On July 19, 2018, the undersigned issued a decision awarding
compensation to petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 34.

       On October 25, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 40. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,983.42 and attorneys’
costs in the amount of $885.72. 

In compliance with General Order #9,


1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 41. Thus, the total amount requested is $18,983.42.

        On November 7, 2018, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF
No. 42. 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.” 

Respondent adds, however, that he “is
satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in
this case.” 

Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special
Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees
and costs.” 

       Petitioner has filed no reply.

       The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
motion for attorney fees. The undersigned reduces the request for attorney’s fees for
the reasons listed below.


       I.     Legal Standard

         The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.§
15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific
billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the
service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 

, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in
their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 

, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s
discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is]
reasonable for the work done.” 

Furthermore, the special master may
reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and
without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 

, 209 (2009). A special master need not
engaged in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees.
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

, 729 (2011).

        The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

, 484 (1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” 

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.” 

.

                                             2
          II.     Discussion

                  A. Administrative Time

       Upon review of the billing records submitted, it appears that a number of entries
are for tasks considered clerical or administrative. In the Vaccine Program, secretarial
work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the
attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 

, 387 (1989); Dingle v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 08-579V, 

, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 24, 2014). “[B]illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the
Vaccine Program.” Mostovoy, 

, at *5 (citing 

). A total of 3.3 hours was billed by paralegals on tasks considered administrative.
Examples of these entries include the following3:

                  June 1, 2017 (1.70 hrs) “Review, organize and prepare medical
                  records/Ex. 1-7 for summarization and electronic filing.
                  July 28, 2017 (0.10 hrs) “Prepare new records/Ex. 8 for summarization
                  and filing”
                  September 6, 2017 (0.20 hrs) “Prepare new records/Ex. 12 for
                  summarization and filing”
                  January 9, 2018 (0.20 hrs) “Review and prepare documents to accompany
                  demand; convert to PDF and send to DOJ”

ECF No. 40 at 7-11, 13 and 16.

     Thus, the undersigned reduces the amount of attorneys’ fees requested in the
amount of $457.60.4

          III.    Attorney Costs

      Petitioner requests reimbursement for costs incurred from in the amount of
$885.72. ECF No. 40 at 2. After reviewing petitioner’s invoices, the undersigned finds
no cause to reduce petitioner’s’ request and awards the full amount of attorney costs
sought.

          IV.     Conclusion

     Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS
IN PART petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.



3   These are merely examples and this list is not exhaustive.

4   This amount consists of (3hrs x $138 = $414.00) + (0.3 hrs x $142 = $42.60) = $456.60.

                                                      3
      Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $18,525.825 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Ronald Craig Homer.

        The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                           s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Chief Special Master




5This 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.,

(Fed. Cir.1991).

6 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.
                                                      4