In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1677V 

(not to be published)

DEBRA H. CHILDRESS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: November 13, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On October 31, 2018, Debra H. Childress 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 she suffered a permanent indentation in her left 

shoulder as a result of receiving an influenza and tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis 

vaccines in her left shoulder on October 14, 2016. (Petition at 1-2). On July 6, 2020, a 

decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ 

stipulation. (ECF No. 35). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 identified material fits within this definition, I 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

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated November 3, 

2020, (ECF No. 42), requesting a total award of $22,472.57. This represents $6,446.50

in fees and costs incurred by counsel’s former firm Rawls Law Group and $16,026.07 in 

fees and costs incurred by counsel’s current firm, Sands Anderson, P.C. (ECF No. 42).

In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that 

she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 42-3). Respondent reacted to the 

motion on November 6, 2020 indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements 

for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case and defers to the Court’s 

discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. (ECF No. 44). That same day,

Petitioner filed her reply requesting the fees and costs be awarded in full. (ECF No. 45). 

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my 

experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested 

hours or rates. 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. § 

15(e). Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $22,472.573 as 

follows:

• A lump sum of $6,446.50, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner 

and Rawls Law Group; and

• A lump sum of $16,026.07, representing reimbursement for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and Sands Anderson, P.C.

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.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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master