Case Information
*1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-861V KIMBERLY W. CENTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 6, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Richard William Zahn, Jr., Joel Bieber Firm, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner. Katherine Edwards, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS [1]
On August 5, 2022, Kimberly W. Center (“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 alleged that she suffered from a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on September 30, 2020 . On May 22, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 44.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $11,575.87 (representing $10,520.00 in fees, plus $1,115.87 in costs). Motion for *2 Attorney ‘s Fees (“Motion”) filed July 9, 2024, ECF No. 48. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 3.
Respondent reacted to the motion on July 12, 2024, representing that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response at 2-3, ECF No. 49. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a minor reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason listed below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 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. , 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 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. , 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 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.” Id. at 1522. 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. , 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 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. , 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 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 Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 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.” Hensley , 461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
*3 Petitioner requests the rate of $500.00 per hour for all time billed for her attorney Mr. Richard Zahn and the rate of $200.00 per all-time billed by the firm’s paralegals. These rates require slight adjustments, however, because they exceed what has previously been awarded to Mr. Zahn and his paralegals. Mr. Zahn was awarded the lesser rate of $425 per hour, and paralegals were awarded the lesser rate of $145 per hour, for the same timeframe. See Dixon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1279V, 2023 WL 8011346 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 29, 2023).
I find no reason to deviate from the previously awarded, and shall reduce the rates from 2020-22 to those previously awarded. For time billed in 2023 and 2024, I find a reduced rate of $475 per hour for Mr. Zahn and a rate of $175 per hour for the paralegals to be more appropriate. Application of these rates results in an overall reduction of $1,823.00 in fees to be awarded (and no adjustments are made to time billed to the matter).
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided sufficient supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 48-6. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $9,812,87 (representing $8,697.00 in fees plus $1,115.87 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. [3]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
*4
s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
NOTES
[1] Because this Decision 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 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
[2] National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).
[3] Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.