         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                               OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-06V
                                   Filed: September 7, 2017

    * * * * * * * * * * * * *               *   *
    HANNAH E BOYLE,                             *       UNPUBLISHED
                                                *
                Petitioner,                     *
    v.                                          *       Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
                                                *       Respondent Does Not Object.
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                         *
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                         *
                                                *
             Respondent.                        *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *               *   *

Lawrence Cohan, Esq., Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Lynn Ricciardella, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                     DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

        On January 4, 2016, Hannah Boyle (“Ms. Boyle,” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that
she developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-
acellular pertussis (“”TDaP”) vaccination on August 29, 2014. See Petition (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1.
On July 17, 2017, the undersigned issued a Decision awarding compensation to petitioner based
on the parties’ stipulations. See Decision, ECF No. 34.




1
  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I
intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance
with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified
as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has
14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction
must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits
within the requirements of that provision, I will delete 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of
42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

                                                    1
        On August 23, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Motion for
Fees, ECF No. 39. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $51,613.00 and attorneys’
costs in the amount of $8,941.23, for a total amount of $60,554.23. Id. at 2. In accordance with
General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner did not incur any out-of-pocket
expenses. Id. Petitioner filed additional documentation to support her motion on August 24, 2017.
ECF No. 40.

       Respondent did not file a formal response; however, respondent’s counsel communicated
via email that respondent deferred to the discretion of the special master.

                                       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 his or her 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).

        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
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

                                                  2
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)).

        In this case, petitioner’s counsel practices in Philadelphia, PA. Special masters have
consistently awarded forum rates to legal professionals practicing in the greater Philadelphia area.
See, e.g., Vanderpoel v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-899, 2017 WL 2534327 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16, 2017); Colagreco v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-465V, 2016
WL 6518579 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 26, 2016). Therefore, forum rates apply in this case.

        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

       The requested hourly forum rates are consistent with the rates previously found to be
reasonable in cases involving petitioner’s counsel and his staff. See Davis v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 15-693, 2017 WL 3165489 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2017); Easton v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1068, 2017 WL 2806916 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 1,
2017). Therefore, the undersigned finds the requested rates to be reasonable.

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

3
 The fee schedules are posted on the Court’s website. See Office of Special Masters, Attorneys’
Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedule: 2015-2016,
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys -Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2015-
2016.pdf (last visited September 7, 2017); Office of Special Masters, Attorneys’ Forum Hourly
Rate Fee Schedule: 2017, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-
Rate-Fee-Schedule2017.pdf (last visited September 7, 2017).

                                                  3
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-
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).

        Upon review of petitioner’s application, the number of hours expended in this case appears
to be reasonable. Therefore, the undersigned awards the requested attorneys’ fees.

C.     Reasonable Costs

       Petitioner requested a total of $8,941.23 in attorneys’ costs, including $4,482.36 in
mediation costs, $1,088.06 in travel expenses, and $2,925.71 in costs associated with obtaining
medical records. Motion for Fees at 19-20. The undersigned finds petitioner’s requested costs to
be reasonable.

                                   III. Total Award Summary

       Based on the foregoing, the undersigned awards the total of $60,554.23,4 representing
reimbursement for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $51,613.00 and costs in the amount of
$8,941.23, in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioners and petitioners’ counsel,
Lawrence Cohan, Esq. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with
this Decision.5

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                     s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
                                                     Mindy Michaels Roth
                                                     Special Master




4
  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).
5
  Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

                                                 4
