In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 18-777V
                                     Filed: June 15, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * *  *
RONALD DISCHER,            *                               UNPUBLISHED
                           *
     Petitioner,           *
                           *
v.                         *                               Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
                           *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH        *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,        *
                           *
            Respondent.    *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald C. Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Lisa A. Watts, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                        DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

        On June 1, 2018, Ronald Discher (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that he suffered from Polymyalgia
Rheumatica (“PMR”) and Rheumatoid Arthritis (“RA”), as a result of the influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On November 11, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the
petition. ECF No. 31. On November 12, 2019, the undersigned issued her Decision dismissing
the petition for insufficient proof. ECF No. 32.

       On March 10, 2020, petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 37 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of

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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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.
$40,878.16 (representing $34,165.90 in attorneys’ fees and $6,712.26 in costs). Fees App. at 1-
2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that he has personally incurred costs of
$6.50 in pursuit of this litigation.

to the motion on March 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. 39. Petitioner did not
file a reply thereafter.

        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, 

, 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, although the petition
was eventually dismissed, the undersigned finds that the petition was filed in good faith, and that
there was a reasonable basis to file it. Respondent also has not challenged the good faith or
reasonable basis of the claim. Accordingly, petitioner 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., 

, 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.”

(quoting
Blum v. Stenson, 

, 888 (1984)). That product is then adjusted upward or downward
based on other specific findings.

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., 

, 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., 

. 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.” 

(quoting 

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., 

, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011)


                                                  2
(citing 

). 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
jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum
hourly rate.

known as the Davis County exception. See Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 

, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery
Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 

, 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, 

(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

       The undersigned has reviewed the rates requested for the work of his counsel at Conway,
Homer, P.C., and finds them to be reasonable and consistent with what these attorneys have
previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and shall award them herein.

B.     Hours Reasonably Expended

         Attorneys' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” 

. 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., 

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

,
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., 

,
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, 

, 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, 

, 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,

, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2014) (collecting cases). And “it is

3
 The 2015-2016 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2015-2016.pdf. The
2017 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-
Rate-Fee-Schedule-2017.pdf. The 2018 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20Schedule
%202018.pdf.
The 2019 Fee Schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys%27%20Forum%20Rate%20Fee%20Schedule
%202019.pdf. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in
McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 1, 2015).


                                                   3
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, 

, 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.” 

. In exercising that discretion, special masters may reduce the number
of hours submitted by a percentage of the amount charged. See Broekelschen, 

. at 728–
29 (affirming the Special Master's reduction of attorney and paralegal hours); Guy v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 

, 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 a final
award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $34,165.90.

C.      Reasonable Costs

         Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests
a total of $6,712.26 in costs for acquisition of medical records, postage, the Court’s filing fee, and
expert work performed by Dr. Samar Gupta in reviewing medical records and discussing his
impressions of the case with counsel. The undersigned finds this cost reasonable and supported.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the full amount of costs sought.

D.       Petitioner’s Costs

        Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner states that he has personally incurred costs of
$6.50 for acquisition of medical records. Petitioner has supported this cost and it is reasonable.
Petitioner shall therefore be fully reimbursed for this cost.

                                            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 $40,878.16, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees
        and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Mr. Ronald Homer,
        Esq.; and

     2) a lump sum in the amount of $6.50, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs,
        in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

        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

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
IT IS SO ORDERED.

                    s/Mindy Michaels Roth
                    Mindy Michaels Roth
                    Special Master




                      5