Facts
- Walter Joey Overstreet was involved in a car crash in Park County, Montana, resulting in one death, and he faced criminal charges stemming from the incident. [lines="46-52"]
- Overstreet claimed he was not driving during the accident and was tried twice, both resulting in hung juries. [lines="51-56"]
- Officer Fetterhoff, who investigated the crash, collected hair evidence that was later discarded, allegedly at the instruction of Park County Attorney Bruce Becker. [lines="66-87"]
- After the criminal case's dismissal, Overstreet filed a civil suit alleging negligence, spoliation of evidence, and other claims against various defendants, including law enforcement and attorneys. [lines="92-98"]
- The District Court ultimately dismissed the civil suit, ruling that claims against individual defendants were barred by prosecutorial immunity and the statute of limitations. [lines="101-105"]
Issues
- Whether the State of Montana was the only proper defendant in Overstreet's civil claims based on the prosecutors' roles. [lines="119-124"]
- Whether prosecutorial immunity barred Overstreet's claims against the individual defendants, including negligence and spoliation of evidence. [lines="172-179"]
- Whether Overstreet’s claims against Officer Fetterhoff were barred by the statute of limitations. [lines="257-272"]
Holdings
- The court affirmed that the State of Montana was the only proper defendant because the individually named defendants acted on behalf of the State during prosecution. [lines="171-171"]
- The court held that prosecutorial immunity protected the individual defendants from civil liability for actions taken within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. [lines="210-210"]
- The court determined that Overstreet’s claims against Fetterhoff regarding the investigation were barred by the statute of limitations. [lines="295-295"]
OPINION
Case Information
*1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-947V Filed: October 22, 2024 Special Master Horner ERWIN CASAZZA, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS [1]
On July 14, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. [2] (“Vaccine Act”). (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleged that he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis as a result of influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 3, 2015. ( Id. ) On August 30, 2023, the undersigned issued a decision denying entitlement to compensation for petitioner’s injury. (ECF No. 73.) On January 31, 2024, petitioner filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 77.) Petitioner seeks $71,345.91, including $44,158.50 for attorneys’ fees and $27,187.41 for litigation costs. ( Id . at 2.) Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner certifies that he has not advanced any funds in the pursuit of his claim. ( Id. )
*2 Respondent filed a response on February 2, 2024, in which he noted 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.” (ECF No. 78, p. 1.) Instead, he “defers to the court regarding whether the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and “requests that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award of attorney’s fees and costs.” ( Id. at 2, 4.)
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. (ECF No. 77, pp. 4-42; Exs. A-B.) In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. Additionally, the costs are reasonable and sufficiently documented.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 300aa-15(e). 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 $71,345.91 [3] as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Laura Levenberg, Esq.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. [4]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master
[1] Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the document 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
[2] Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be to the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq. 1
[3] This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, including “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 300aa-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 ex rel. Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
[4] 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. 2