Judges: Mindy Michaels Roth
Filed: Dec. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2020
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-395V
Filed: November 24, 2020
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KATELIN B. KRAUSE, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, PC, New York, NY, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Roth, Special Master:
On June 13, 2013, Katelin Krause (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that she developed transverse myelitis
after receiving human papillomavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and influenza vaccinations. See
Petition, ECF No. 1. On March 24, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned
adopted as her decision awarding compensation on the same day. ECF No. 108.
On August 9, 2020, petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 112 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
$45,415.12. Fees App. at 15-16. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner states she has not
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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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.
personally incurred any costs associated with the prosecution of her petition. Fees App. Ex. 5.
Respondent responded to the motion on August 25, 2020, stating “Respondent is satisfied the
statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting
that the undersigned “exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees
and costs.” Response at 2-3, ECF No. 113. Petitioner filed a reply on August 25, 2020, stating that
“Petitioner respectfully relies on the facts, law and argument presented in her submission filed
on August 9, 2020.” Reply at 1, ECF No. 114.
This matter is now ripe for consideration.
I. Legal Framework
The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs.” §
15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is
automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not
prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith”
and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because petitioner
was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Federal Circuit has endorsed the use of the lodestar approach to determine what
constitutes “reasonable attorneys' fees” and “other costs” under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under this approach, “an initial
estimate of a reasonable attorneys' fees” is calculated by “multiplying the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.”
Id. at 1347–48 (quoting
Blum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward
based on other specific findings.
Id.
Special masters have substantial discretion in awarding fees and may adjust a fee request
sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing petitioners with
notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
86 Fed. Cl.
201, 209 (2009). Special masters need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner's fee
application when reducing fees. See Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
102 F.
Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
II. Discussion
A. Reasonable Hourly Rate
A “reasonable hourly rate” is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera, 515 F.3d
at 1348 (quoting
Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum rate for
the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of petitioner's
attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing
Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorney's fees
to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum
2
jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum
hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs.,
640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery
Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA,
169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides the framework for determining
the appropriate hourly rate range for attorneys' fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See
McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of Special Masters has accepted the decision in McCulloch and
has issued a Fee Schedule for subsequent years.3
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for her attorneys: for Mr. Robert Krakow,
$450.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $464.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, and
$484.00 per hour for work performed in 2020; for Mr. Andrew Krueger, $200.00 per hour for all
work performed from 2017-2018; and for Ms. Stephanie Schmitt, $200.00 per hour for work
performed in 2018. These rates are consistent with what counsel has previously been awarded for
their Vaccine Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.
B. Hours Reasonably Expended
Attorneys' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are
“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs.,
3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart,
461 U.S. 424,
434 (1983)). “Unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing” includes “an attorney billing for a
single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task, attorneys billing
excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours, [and] attorneys
entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
129 Fed. Cl. 691,
703 (2016). While attorneys may be compensated for non-attorney-level work, the rate must be
comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal or secretary. See O'Neill v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 08–243V,
2015 WL 2399211, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2015).
Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs them. See, e.g.,
McCulloch,
2015 WL 5634323, at *26. Hours spent traveling are ordinarily compensated at one-
half of the normal hourly attorney rate. See Scott v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08–756V,
2014 WL 2885684, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And “it is
inappropriate for counsel to bill time for educating themselves about basic aspects of the Vaccine
Program.” Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 14–1111V,
2016 WL 2853910, at *2
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). Ultimately, 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.”
Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number
of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen,
102 F. Cl. at 728–
3
The 2015-2020 Fee Schedules can be accessed at http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly
rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 09-293V,
2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
3
29 (affirming the Special Master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403, 406 (1997) (same).
The overall hours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The undersigned has
reviewed the billing entries and finds that the billing entries adequately describe the work done on
the case and the amount of time spent on that work. None of the entries appear objectionable, nor
has respondent identified any entries as objectionable. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the full
amount sought.
C. Reasonable Costs
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests
a total of $3,027.27 in costs. Fees App. at 15-16. Most of this amount is for the work of petitioner’s
expert, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, with the remainder attributable to acquiring medical records and
postage. The undersigned finds these costs reasonable and supported with adequate
documentation. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the full amount of costs sought.
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is
GRANTED. The undersigned hereby awards the following:
1) a lump sum of $40,365.62, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’
fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Mr. Robert
Krakow; and
2) a lump sum of $5,049.50, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs of
petitioner’s prior counsel, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and
Krueger & Hernandez S.C.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
4
Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Vaccine Rule 11(a).
4
