In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-0164V 

Filed: January 19, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

BETTY JENKINS, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On February 3, 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 alleged that she suffered left shoulder injuries as a result of 

her September 25, 2014 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. On September 25, 

2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on

the respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 25.) 

On December 7, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(ECF No. 32.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,646.50 and 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends 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). 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.

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).
2 

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $554.37. (Id. at ¶ 4.) In accordance with General 

Order #9, petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. (Id.) Thus, the total amount requested is $13,200.87. 

Respondent has not filed a response but later indicated by email that respondent 

had no objection to the overall amount sought by petitioner.3 

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 $13,200.874 as a lump 

sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel 

Amy A. Senerth. 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

 

3 Respondent’s response was due by January 4, 2018. See ECF No. 32. On January 10, 2018, 

respondent’s counsel confirmed via email to all parties that they do not object to the overall amount 

sought by petitioner’s counsel. Respondent’s counsel additionally noted that “respondent’s lack of 

objection to the amount sought in this case should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver 

as to the hourly rates requested, the number of billed, or the other litigation related costs.” 

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 the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.