The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0765V
JOANIE ARSENEAULT,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 11, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Daniel Mark Soloway, Soloway Law Firm, Pensacola, FL, for Petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On June 24, 2020, Joanie Arseneault 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 suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of an
influenza vaccine that was administered to her on September 19, 2018. Petition at 1. On
May 12, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the
Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 65.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $98,572.74 (representing $90,828.95 for attorney’s fees and $7,743.79 for costs).
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 information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If , upon review, I agree that
the identif ied material f its within this def inition, 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 (2012).
Petitioner’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed June 28, 2023, ECF
No. 68. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement
indicating that Petitioner incurred no out of pocket expenses. ECF No. 72 at 5.
Respondent reacted to the motion on July 26, 2023, stating that he is satisfied that
the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case,
but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s
Response to Motion at 2-3, ECF No. 69. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a
reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reason stated
below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
2
ATTORNEY FEES
A. Attorney Hourly Rates
Petitioner requests the hourly rate of $484 for work performed by attorney Daniel
Soloway in the 2018-22 timeframe. ECF No. 68-3. Petitioner also requests the hourly rate
of $394 for all work performed by attorney Daniel Finelli in the 2021-23 timeframe. ECF
No. 68-4. These rates require adjustment.
Mr. Soloway has been a licensed attorney since 1985, (ECF No. 68-1), placing him
in the rage of attorneys with over 31 years’ experience based on the OSM Attorneys’
Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules. 3 Under the applicable Fee Schedules, attorneys in
the range of 31+ years’ of experience are entitled to hourly rates between $407 - $464 for
work performed in 2018 through 2019. Mr. Soloway’s requested rate of $484 therefore
exceeds the Schedule’s range for comparably-experienced attorneys. Furthermore, Mr.
Soloway’s last hourly rate was established based upon a case decided in 2017, at which
time he was awarded $350 per hour for that year. See Pinckard v. Sec’y of Health &
Human. Servs., No. 16-0333V, slip. op., at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 5, 2017).
Even allowing for increases each year since, the flat rate requested herein is
excessively high. And hourly rates on the highest end of the experience ranges are
usually awarded only to those attorneys with significant experience in the Vaccine
Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health and Human. Services, No. 09–293V, 2015
WL 5634323, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). Accordingly, based on my
experience applying the factors relevant to determining proper hourly rates for Program
attorneys, I find it reasonable to compensate Mr. Soloway at the lesser rate of $433
per hour for his time billed in the 2018-22 timeframe. This reduces the amount of fees
to be awarded herein by $5,528.40. 4
Mr. Finelli’s requested rate of $394 for his work performed in the 2021-22
timeframe is similarly excessive. Mr. Finelli has been a licensed attorney since 2012,
(ECF No. 68-2), placing him in the range of attorneys with 8-10 years’ experience based
on the OSM Attorneys’ Fee Schedules. Based on his overall legal experience, the quality
of work performed, his experience in the Vaccine Program, and his reputation in the legal
community and the community at large, See McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323 at *17, I find
3
The Attorneys’ Fee Schedule are available at http://www.cof c.uscourts.gov/node/2914.
4
This amount consists of $484 - $433 = $51 x 108.40 = $5,528.40
3
it reasonable to compensate Mr. Finelli at the lesser rate of $300 for all time billed
in the 2021-22 period. Accordingly, this further reduces the amount of fees to be awarded
herein by $8,845.40. 5 Mr. Soloway and Mr. Finelli, however, are both entitled to rate
increases in the future (for coming years).
B. Paralegal Tasks Billed at Attorney Rates
In addition to the aforementioned hourly rate reductions, there are several instances
in which tasks that are considered paralegal in nature were billed at attorney hourly rates
in this matter. Attorneys may be compensated for paralegal-level work, but only at a rate
that is comparable to that of a paralegal. See, e.g. Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human.
Servs., No. XX-XXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010)
(citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989)); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health &
Human. Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016);
Riggins. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *20-21
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009); Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-
535, 2008 WL 5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008).
Upon review of the billing records, Attorney Soloway billed 6.20 hours on tasks
considered paralegal in nature, with several entries being significantly vague as well. 6
Several of these entries do not clearly specify which medical providers were being served
with request for records, making it difficult to determine whether such efforts were
duplicative or otherwise unnecessary. See ECF No. 68-3 at 4-9. An application for fees
and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time billed so that a special master may
determine, from the application and the case file, whether the amount requested is
reasonable. See Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., 18 Cl.Ct. 751, 760 (1989);
Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., 2009 WL 2568468 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mast.
June 27, 2009).
5
This amount consists of $394 - $300 = $94 x 94.10 = $8,845.40
6
Examples of such billing entries are as f ollows: 6.20 hours billed by David Soloway at the hourly rate of
$484 on: 3/19/19; 5/1/19; 9/5/19 (four entries): “Med Recds & Billing Request – Doctor,” totaling 0.60 hours;
10/14/19; 10/15/19 (two entries): “Med Recds Request – Hospital,” totaling 0.30 hours; 4/15/20; 6/3/20;
7/15/20 (two entries): “Med Recds & Billing Request – Doctor,” totaling 0.40 hours; 8/17/20 (f our entries):
“Fax Cover Sheet – Medical Provider” totaling 0.40 hours; 11/6/20; 12/10/20 (three entries); 12/14/20 (two
entries); 12/15/20, totaling 0.80 hours; 7/2/21 (three entries); 7/13/21; 7/14/21; 8/10/21; 11/18/21; 12/10/21
(two entries), totaling 2.10 hours; 12/20/21; 1/11/22 (two entries); 3/16/22 (four entries); totaling 0.70 hours;
4/6/22 (two entries); 4/11/22 (three entries); 5/13/22; 3/8/23 (three entries), totaling 0.90 hours. See ECF
No. 68-3 at 4-9.
4
Attorney Finelli also billed time (22.50 hours) to completing several tasks
considered paralegal in nature. 7 See ECF No. 68-4 at 2-8. Counsel is admonished that
“[t]asks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at
an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL
3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is
compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the
nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human. Servs., No. XX-
XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these
billing entries are reimbursable, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to
that of a paralegal. Accordingly, I reduce both Mr. Soloway’s and Mr. Finelli’s hourly
rate for all tasks considered paralegal in nature to a rate of $145 per hour,
respectively. This further reduces the fees to be awarded herein by $7,704.30. 8
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner requests $7,743.79 in overall costs. ECF No. 68-6. Such costs are
associated with obtaining medical records, postage, copies, expert fees, and the Court’s
filing fee. I have reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of them to be
reasonable, with the exception of $2,028.98 in costs that are not reimbursable in the
Vaccine Program. 9
In the Program, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs are limited to those “incurred
in any proceeding on [a] petition.” Section 15(e)(1); see also Krause v. Sec’y of Health &
Human. Servs., No. 01-93V, 2012 WL 4477431, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 20,
2012). As such, the cost incurred for obtaining a “Cert. of Good Standing, FL Bar” is not
reimbursable. Additionally, special masters have concluded that, “[a]s a general matter,
‘interest cannot be recovered in a suit against the [g]overnment in the absence of an
7
Examples of such billing entries are as f ollows: 22.50 hours billed by Daniel Finelli at the hourly rate of
$394 on: 7/14/21: “Prep new req to Walgreens f or vaccine,” totaling 0.60 hours; 8/11/21: “Letter to
Walgreens RE vacc records,” totaling 0.60 hours; 1/11/22: “Prep Notice of filing & update Exh list,” totaling
1.30 hours; 4/4/22 (f our entries): “Notice of filing exibit copy 25, Prep Petitioner’s Exhibit List, Update Exh
list, Pagination, organization & notices of filing – Exhs 25-32,” totaling 9.00 hours; 4/11/22 (f our entries);
4/15/22; 5/2/22 totaling 6.80 hours; 5/2/22; 5/16/22 (two entries); 11/28/22 totaling 4.20 hours. See ECF
No. 68-4 at 2-8.
8
This amount is calculated as f ollows: ($484 - $145 = $339 x 6.20 hrs = $2,101.80) + ($394 - $145 =
$249 x 22.50 hrs = $5,602.50).
9
Examples of the non-reimbursable costs include: “Interest charged in the amount of $2,014.98”; and
“Cert. of Good Standing, FL Bar in the amount of $14.00.” See ECF No. 68-6 at 2.
5
express waiver of sovereign immunity from an award of interest.’” Raymo v. Sec’y of
Health & Human. Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691, at 706 (2016), citing Preseault v. U.S., 52
Fed. Cl. 667 (2002); Response at 3. Thus, the Vaccine Act “does not provide for an award
related to interest accumulated on those fees and costs.” Raymo, at 706; Response at 3,
n.1. Accordingly, I hereby reduce the requests costs by $2,028.98, since that sum reflects
Petitioner’s interest calculation.
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section
15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I
award a total of $74,465.66 (representing $68,750.85 in attorney’s fees and $5,714.81
in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel, Daniel M. Soloway. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for
review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in
accordance with this Decision. 10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10
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.
6