In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 17-1783V
                                      Filed: May 14, 2019
                                        UNPUBLISHED


    MAGALIS TIJERINA,

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

                       Respondent.


Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

      On November 14, 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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a consequence of receiving a hepatitis B (“Hep B”)
vaccination on November 17, 2016. Petition at 1. On March 18, 2019, the undersigned
issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation.
ECF No. 32.


1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, the undersigned is required 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).

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).
       On April 4, 2019, petitioner filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs. ECF No. 36. 3 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $33,882.20
and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,249.39. 

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 $35,131.59.

      The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request and finds a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate 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
engage 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.” 

.

        II.     Attorney Fees

                A. Excessive and Duplicative Billing

      The undersigned has previously reduced the fees paid to petitioners due to
excessive and duplicative billing. See Ericzon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.

3 The motion was filed as an unopposed motion and specifically states that respondent has no objection
to petitioner’s request. ECF No. 36.

                                                   2
10-103V, 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced overall fee
award by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing); Raymo v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 11-654V, 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 2, 2016)
(reduced overall fee award by 20 percent), mot. for rev. denied, 

(2016). The undersigned and other special masters have previously noted the
inefficiency that results when cases are staffed by multiple individuals and have reduced
fees accordingly. See 

.

       Billing records show that three attorneys and six paralegals billed time in this
matter, with some billing less than one hour. This resulted in multiple reviews of the
same records, orders and updating the same entries on files. For example, the
attorney’s and the paralegals list 36 separate entries to review court notifications and
updating file entries, for a total of 4.8 hours of time. The undersigned reduces the
request for attorney’s fees by $414.10 4, the total of the duplicated entries at the
paralegal rates.

        III.    Attorney Costs

        Petitioner requests reimbursement for attorney costs in the amount of $1,249.39.
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
petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

      Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $34,717.49 5 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Alison H. Haskins. Petitioner requests check be forwarded to Maglio Christopher
& Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota Florida 34236.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4This amount consists of (0.5 hrs x $145 = $72.50) + (2.1 hrs x $148 = $310.80) + (.2 hrs x $154 = $30.8)
= $414.10.
5 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.,

(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.
                                                     3
    s/Nora Beth Dorsey
    Nora Beth Dorsey
    Chief Special Master




4