# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 248 V (not to be published)

RO ROHLFS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: June 23 , 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for

P etitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

On February 13, 2019, Ro Rohlfs 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 he suffered a s houlder i njury r elated to v accine

a dministration as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 13, 2016

. ( Petition at 1 )

. On October 1 9

, 202 1

, a decision was issued awarding compensation to

Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation

. ( ECF No. 38 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated May 2 , 2022,
(ECF No. 44 ) , requesting a total award of $ 31,083.30 (representing $ 28,755.10 in fees
and $ 2,328.20 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner
represents that Petitioner incurred out of pocket expenses in the amount of $8.75 . (Id. at

1

- 2 ). Respondent reacted to the motion on May 5 , 2022, indicating that he is satisfied the
statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case

, deferring resolution of the amount to be awa rded to my discretion. (ECF No. 45 ). On May

6 , 2022, Petitioner filed a reply requesting the fees and costs be awarded in full. (ECF

No. 46 ).

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

. Section
15(e). Accordingly , petitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 31,092.05 3 as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 31,083.30 , representing reimbursement for fees and
costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and

Petitioner’s counsel and;

• A lump sum of $ 8.75 , representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s
costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

I n 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

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 rende red. 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.