1 

# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 1439V

Filed: April 18, 2017



### * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Sanders



### ERIKA REEDER

, *

* Attorneys ’ Fees and Costs; Reasonable


### Petitioner, * Amount to Which Respondent Does Not



### * Object.



### v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C hurchill H. Huston

, Churchill Huston Law

, LLC

, Philadelphia

, PA , for Petitioner. Lara A. Englund , U.S. Department of Justice, Washing ton, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On November 1 , 201 6

, Erika Reeder (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 to

- 34 ( 2012 )

. 2
Petitioner alleged that an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 11 , 2013 caused

her to d evelop Guillain

- Barr é syndrome (“ GBS ”) . Peti tion ( “ Pet. ” ) at 1

- 4, ECF No. 1. On April

18 , 2017, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her claim. Motion to Dismiss Petition
( “ Mot. ” ), ECF No. 29. That same day, the undersigned is sued a decision dismissing the case for insufficient proof. Decision, ECF No. 30

.

1 This decision shall be posted 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that
satisfies the criteria in § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the ide ntified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.

No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as ame nded, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq. (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

On April 18 , 2017, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Attorney s ’ Fees and Costs . Mot. Att’y’s Fees and Costs , ECF No. 28

. Petitioner requested attorneys ’ fees i n the amount of
$ 8,400.00 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $ 549.79

. Id. at 1. Respondent indicated that he “does not obje ct to th e overall amount sought .” Id. Respondent also stated that h is “ lack of objection in this case should no t be construed as [an] admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the number of h ours billed, or the other litigation related costs.” Id.

The undersigned has reviewed Petitioner’s counsel’s detailed records of time and expenses incurred in this case, and they are reasonable. 3 In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 15(e) (2012), the undersigned finds that Petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.
Accordingly, the undersign ed hereb y awards the amount of $8,949.79

, 4 in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Churchill H. Huston

. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Herbrina D. Sanders

Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master

3 Petitioner’s application for fees and costs, al though unopposed, relies upon a pr oposed hourly

rate for Pe titioner’s counsel, C hurchill Huston , who practic e s in Philadelphia

, Pennsylvania

. Respondent does not maintain an objection to the amount of fees and costs sought by Petitioner, and I find that the total sum requested is reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, I do not

reach th e question of whether M r. Huston 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). This decision does not constitute such a determination.

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 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing o f a notice renouncing the right to
seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).