In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1889V
                                   Filed: September 20, 2019
                                         UNPUBLISHED


    KATHLEEN M. LESLEY,

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

                       Respondent.


Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

      On December 6, 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on
September 1, 2016, and that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than
six months. Petition at 1, 6.

         On July 19, 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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the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 August 7, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 36. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,480.70 and attorneys’
costs in the amount of $1,189.94. 

In compliance with General Order #9,
petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 36-3. Thus, the total amount requested is $16,670.64.

       On August 13, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF No.
37. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 requires
respondent to file a response to 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 requests that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a
reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” 

      Petitioner filed no reply.

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

.
                                            2
          II.     Attorney Fees

                  A. Hourly Rates

                      i.      Glen Howard Sturtevant

       Petitioner requests the rate of $315 per hour for 2017, $326 per hour for 2018
and the rate of $349 for 2019 for work performed by attorney Glen Sturtevant. Mr.
Sturtevant was previously awarded the rates of $315 for 2017 and $326 for 2018 and
they are awarded herein. Although Mr. Sturtevant’s requested 2019 rate of $349 per
hour is within his appropriate experience rate, he was previously awarded the rate of
$339 for 2019. Kovtun v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0296V, slip op. at 34
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2019). The undersigned reduces the requested rate for
2019 to the previously awarded rate, reducing the request for attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $93.00.3

                      ii.     Paralegal Rates

        The paralegals of Rawls Law Group billed at the hourly rate of $145 for time
billed in 2017, $152 per hour for 2018. These rates have been previously awarded to
the paralegals and are awarded herein. The requested rate of $159 per hour for 2019
exceeds the range for paralegals for 2019. The undersigned reduces the paralegal
rates for 2019 to $156 per hour, reducing the request for attorneys’ fees in the amount
of $10.20.4

          III.    Attorney Costs

        Petitioner requests reimbursement for attorney costs in the amount of $1,189.94.
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.

      Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $16,567.445 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr.

3   This amount consists of $349 - $339 = $10 x 9.3 hrs = $93.00.

4   This amount consists of $159 - $156 = $3 x 3.4 hrs = $10.20.

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.
                                                     3
        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




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