# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 6 -15 6 V

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JOSEPH T. RENFROE, * * Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: April 5

, 2017 *

v. * Decision; Attorney’s Fees and Costs

. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

S u san M. Cremer, Law Offices of Michael Lawson Neff, PC, Atlanta, GA

, for Petitioner

.
Darryl Wishard

, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ATTORNEY ’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On February 2, 2016, Joseph Renfroe filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”)

. 2 Petitioner alleg ed that he suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of h is May 7, 2014, receipt of the tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine. The parties eventually filed a stipulation for damages on October 12, 2016 (ECF No. 2 0 ), which I adopted by decision, dated October 13, 2016. ECF No.
22

.

1 This decision will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kin ds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (20 12) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”)

.2

Petitioner has now filed a motion requesting final attorney’s fees and costs , dated March
30 , 2017. See ECF No. 28

. Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs in the combined amount of $22,578. 66 (representing $19

, 784 .50 in attorney’s fees, plus $ 2,794

. 16 in costs). Id

. Respondent filed a response on April 4, 2017, indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney ’ s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring to my discretion the determination of the amount to be awarded. ECF No. 29 at 2. In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner affirmed that he incurred no out- of -pocket costs.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. 3 Accordingly, an award of $2 2

, 578.66 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, S usan Cremer , Esq . Payment of this amount represents all attorney’s fees and
costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e). In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant
to RCF C Appendix B, the clerk of the C ourt SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with
the terms of Petitioner’s motion

. 4



### IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

3 Petitioner's fees application relies upon a proposed hourly rate of $350 for Petitioner's counsel, Susan Cremer , Esq., who practices law in Atlanta

, Georgia . Petitioner purports that counsel should be paid rate amounts near the in

- forum
rates set forth in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 09

- 293V, 2015 WL 5 634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015); ECF No. 20 at 3. B ecause Respondent does not maintain an y specific objection s to the amount of fees and costs sought by Petitioner , and because I find that the total sum requested is reasonable under the circumstances I do not reach the question of whether M s . Cremer is entitled to the forum rate under the test established by the Federal Circuit in Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 515 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008) , and this decision therefore does not constitute suc h a determination.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.