In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

Filed: July 18, 2017 

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

LISA TURNER, *

 *

Petitioner, *

 *

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

 *

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

UNPUBLISHED 

 

Special Master Gowen 

No. 08-864V 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

Michael McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Gowen, Special Master: 

 

 On December 4, 2008, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2

(the “Vaccine Act” or 

“Program”). Petitioner alleged that following a Hepatitis B vaccine administered on December 

20, 2005, she “suffered from multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis and other injuries.” Petition at ¶¶ 

2-3. On April 25, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner 

based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 155. 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it 

on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before 

the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a 

proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the 

decision will be posted on the court’s website. Id. 

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 pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).
2

 On November 15, 2011, a fact hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, before 

Special Master Hastings. Petitioner presented testimony on the events leading up to her injury 

and her symptoms. After numerous status reports, expert reports, and status conferences, an 

entitlement hearing was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, before the undersigned on February 3 

and 4, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the undersigned awarded interim fees and costs in the 

amount of $165,000.00, which was stipulated. ECF No. 114. A Ruling on Entitlement was 

issued on April 18, 2016. 

 After the ruling finding entitlement to compensation, the parties engaged in extensive 

negotiations and documentation of petitioner’s damages, including a life care plan and a 

vocational and economic workup of her future lost wages. Ultimately, the parties stipulated to 

an award of compensation based on the reports generated. 

On June 29, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 160. 

Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $76,015.50, and attorneys’ costs in the 

amount of $14,124.93. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed 

statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, the total amount 

requested is $90,140.43.

 

On July 14, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF No. 161. 

Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role 

for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully 

recommends that the Special Master exercise his discretion and determine a reasonable award for 

attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. Petitioner has filed no reply. 

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. In 

the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause 

to reduce the requested hours or rates. 

 The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). 

Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s 

motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $90,140.433 as follows:

 A lump sum of $90,140.43, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and 

costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s 

counsel, Michael G. McLaren.

 

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 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). 
3

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Thomas L. Gowen 

 Thomas L. Gowen 

 Special Master 

 

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing 

the right to seek review.