In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-156V 

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

 *

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. *

 *

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

Susan 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 DECISION1

On February 2, 2016, Joseph Renfroe filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).

2 Petitioner alleged that he 

suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of his May 7, 2014, receipt of the tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine. The parties eventually filed a stipulation for damages on 

October 12, 2016 (ECF No. 20), 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 kinds 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 (2012) (“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 $22,578.66 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and 

Petitioner’s counsel, Susan 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 RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court 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 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015); ECF No. 20 at 3. Because Respondent does not maintain any specific objections 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 Ms. 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 such 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.