Giza v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2022 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1453V
Filed: January 24, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DONNETTE GIZA, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Ryan D. Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Roth, Special Master:
On September 21, 2018, Donnette Giza (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration after receiving an influenza vaccination on October 18,
2017. See Petition (ECF No. 1). On May 4, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, which the
undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on May 5, 2021. (ECF No. 40).
On October 31, 2021, petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs.
(“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 38). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount
of $43,091.24, representing $39,470.40 in attorneys’ fees and $3,620.84 in costs. Fees App. at 1.
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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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.
Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated she has personally incurred costs
totaling $6.50 in pursuit of this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on November
3, 2021, 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 (ECF No. 47).
Petitioner filed a reply on November 5, 2021, reiterating her belief that the requested amounts
were reasonable. (ECF No. 48).
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 their 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 Fed.
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 the work of her counsel: for Ms. Leah
Durant: $377.00 per hour for work performed in 2018, $380.00 per hour for work performed in
2019, $395.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $420.00 per hour for work performed in
2021; and for Mr. Mike Milmoe, $464.00 per hour for work performed in 2019 and $484.00 per
hour for work performed in 2020. These rates are consistent with what Ms. Durant and Mr. Milmoe
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 Fed. Cl. at 728–
3
The 2015-2021 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).
Turning next to review of the submitted billing statement, I find that the overall hours spent
on this matter appear to be largely reasonable. However, there is a general issue of vagueness in
the description of many of the billing entries, particularly those for communication with petitioner.
As the Federal Circuit has previously ruled, disclosure of the general subject matter of billing
statements does not violate attorney-client privilege and billing entries for communication should
contain some indication as to the nature and purpose of the communication. See Avgoustis v.
Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the instant case, several billing entries
concerning communication do not contain any indication of the topic of that communication, (e.g.,
multiple entries billed for 0.4 hours for “client call”) making it difficult for the undersigned to
determine whether such communication was necessary and reasonable. Other communication
entries contain slightly more information but still are still vague overall (e.g., “Client call. Provide
litigation update” or “Client call. Respond to questions.”). All those descriptions provide is an
indication that case work was the subject to the communication, which should be a given. Entries
describing with greater specificity the topic of discussion would make it easier for the undersigned
to assess whether the amount of time spent on the topic of the communication was reasonable and
necessary. Taken as a whole, the undersigned finds that the amount of communication with
petitioner appears slightly excessive and insufficiently documented.
Accordingly, the undersigned shall reduce the final award of attorneys’ fees by two percent,
resulting in a reduction of $789.40. Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of
$38,681.00.
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 $3,620.84 in costs for acquiring medical records, review of those records, postage, the
Court’s filing fee, and work performed by petitioner’s medical expert, Dr. Clifford Colwell.
Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the requested costs and all appear
reasonable in the undersigned’s experience. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’
costs of $3,620.84. Additionally, petitioner has indicated that she has personally incurred costs of
$6.50 for acquisition of medical records. This cost is reasonable and shall also be fully reimbursed.
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 $42,301.84, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’
fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Ms. Leah
Durant, Esq.; and
4
2) a lump sum 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
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).
5