# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1677 V (not to be published)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 P etitioner.

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

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

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 acellul ar 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 P etitioner based on the parties’
stipulation

. (ECF No. 35 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the D ecision 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 per tinent subpara graph 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 represent s $ 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

sh e 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,

P etitioner filed her re ply requesting the fees and costs be awarded in full

. (ECF No. 45 )

.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’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 $ 22,47 2 .57 3 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 P etitioner

and Rawls Law Group ; and

• A lump sum of $ 16,026. 0 7 , 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 ente r 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 render ed. 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