Case Information
*1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1012V CURRIN M. HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 12, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nathan Williams, Campbellsville, KY, for Petitioner. Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS [1]
On March 1, 2021, Currin M. Hamilton 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 sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration resulting from a Tetanus diphtheria vaccine received in her left deltoid on August 14, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On June 20, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 53.
*2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $27,938.90 (representing $27,536.90 in fees plus $402.00 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed December 13, 2024, ECF No. 57. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on December 17, 2024, indicating 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. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 58. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons stated 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 *3 practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley , 461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
A. Hourly Rates The hourly rates requested for attorney Nathan Williams and his associated paralegals are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be adopted herein. However, the hourly rate requested for Mr. Kevin George requires further evaluation.
Petitioner is requesting that I endorse the rate of $360 for 2020 work performed by Mr. George. Petitioner represents that Mr. George has been a practicing attorney since 1974 (ECF No. 57-1 at 2). Although his requested rate is within the Vaccine Program’s published range for an attorney of his level of experience, it appears that Mr. George is not licensed to practice in the Court of Federal Claims. An attorney who is not admitted to practice before this Court is not eligible to collect fees at an admitted attorney’s rate for his work. See Underwood v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 00-357V, 2013 WL 3157525, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2013).
Accordingly, all time billed by Mr. George will be compensated at a non-attorney rate of $163 per hour. This results in a reduction of fees in the amount of $1,674.50 . [3] (In future cases, I will be prepared to award a higher rate once Mr. George becomes admitted to this Court).
B. Attorney Litigation Costs Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 57-5. 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 $26,264.40 (representing $25,862.40 in fees plus $402.00 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account *4 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. [4]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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 inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).
[3] This amount is calculated as: ($360 - $163 = $197 X 8.50 hrs.) = $1,674.50.
[4] Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.