United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Lester v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 11, 2019 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-0317V Filed: May 30, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

DOUGLAS T. LESTER,

Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Nancy Routh. Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On March 8, 2017, 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 alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his October 7, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. On February 13, 2019, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 62.

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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims'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).

On May 8, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 67. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $21,060.30 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,096.46. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 67-1. Thus, the total amount requested is $22,156.76.

On May 22, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF No. 68. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3.

On May 28, 2019, petitioner filed a reply. ECF No. 69. “Petitioner concurs with Respondent’s recommendation that Special Master Dorsey exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorney’s fees and costs in this case.” Id.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 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 $22,156.76 3 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Ward Black Law.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 4 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, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.