In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-448V 

Filed: July 27, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

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

ELLEN GUYER, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Ronald Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. 

Amy Kokot, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 

 On May 4, 2015, Ellen Guyer (“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 she suffers from a shoulder injury 

resulting from vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her October 11, 2013 

influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. On March 18, 2016, the undersigned issued a 

decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer to which 

petitioner agreed. (ECF No. 29).

 On July 11, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, seeking 

a total of $22,213.52. (ECF No. 34). In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner 

 

1

 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned 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 pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2 

has filed a signed statement indicating she incurred $41.74 in out-of-pocket expenses. 

(ECF No. 35). On July 27, 2016, petitioner filed an amended unopposed motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 36).3

 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs 

in the amount of $20,958.26 and petitioner’s out-of-pocket costs in the amount of $41.74 

for a total amount of $21,000.00. 

 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of opposition 

from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $21,000.004 as follows:

 A lump sum of $20,958.26, representing reimbursement for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Conway, Homer, & Chin-Caplan, 

P.C.; and

 A lump sum of $41.74, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s 

costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master

 

3

 The motion was filed as an unopposed motion and specifically state that respondent has no objection. 

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

 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.