Shields v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: February 9, 2021 * * * * * * * * * * * * * DOROTHY SHIELDS, * Representative, Estate of * UNPUBLISHED NAJEE SHIELDS, *

* No. 14-470V

Petitioner, *

v. * Special Master Gowen

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

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.

Christine M. Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On August 18, 2020, Dorothy Shields (“petitioner”) filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 94). For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT petitioner’s motion and award a total of $2,777.40.

I. Procedural History The prior procedural history is set forth in my prior decision awarding interim attorneys’ fees and costs on January 8, 2019. Interim Fees Decision (“Int. Decision”) (ECF No. 85). Afterwards on March 24, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition (ECF No. 89), which I granted that same day (ECF No. 90).

On August 18, 2020, petitioner filed the instant motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner requested $2,777.40 in attorneys’ fees. Fee App. at 1. The attorneys’ costs were included in the interim fee application and petitioner herself has no costs in the case. Id. On September 1, 2020, respondent reacted to the fees motion, providing that respondent “is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and “recommend[ing] that the Court exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Resp. Response (ECF No. 95) at 2, 3. Petitioner did not file a reply. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. Analysis

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for a petition that does not result in an award of compensation but was filed in good faith and supported by a reasonable basis. § 300aa–15(e)(1). Here, although the petition was eventually dismissed, the undersigned previously noted the presence of good faith and reasonable basis when awarding interim fees. The work for which reimbursement is now requested also has a reasonable basis because it was necessary to bring the matter to a conclusion. Accordingly, a final award of attorneys' fees and costs is proper.

Petitioners “bea[r] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1993). Adequate proof of the claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is filed. Id. at 484 n. 1. The special master has the discretion to reduce awards sua sponte, independent of enumerated objections from the respondent. Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 208-09 (Fed. Cl. 2009); Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008).

A. Attorneys’ Fees

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates:

2019 2020 Edward Kraus $418.00 $435.00 Amy Kraus N/A $365.00 Joyce Westphal (paralegal) $145.00 $160.00

Pet. Fee App. at 4. Special masters have previously awarded these rates and I find that they are reasonable for the work documented in the instant motion.

Turning next to review of the submitted billing statement, I find that the overall hours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable. The entries reasonably and accurately describe the work performed and the length of time it took to perform each task. Moreover, respondent has not identified any particular entries as being objectionable. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees of $2,777.40.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $2,777.40, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s final attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner and her attorney Edward Kraus.2

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.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master