In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1655V 

(not to be published)

JANICE BYRD,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: August 6, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On October 25, 2019, Janice Byrd filed a petition for compensation under the 

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

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered the “table injury” of Guillain-Barre 

Syndrome as a result of her October 27, 2016 influenza vaccination. (Petition at ¶¶ 1, 12).

On May 27, 2021, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on

the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 45). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

internet. 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated July 11, 2021

(ECF No. 50), requesting an award of $22,180.50 in attorney’s fees and costs for attorney 

David Carney at Green & Schafle, LLC. Petitioner also requests attorney’s fees and costs 

for prior attorney Kate Westad. Ms. Westad switched law firms twice during these 

proceedings, incurring $15,272.53 in attorney’s fees and costs at Larkin Hoffman Law 

Firm and $14,630.03 in attorney’s fees and costs at SiebenCarey, P.A. (Id. at 3-4). In 

accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that 

she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (Id. at 27). Respondent reacted to the motion on 

July 26, 2021 indicating that he does not oppose Petitioner’s motion as the amount 

requested is a reasonable amount to have been incurred in this case. (ECF No. 51). 

Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my 

experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested 

hours or rates. 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section

15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs as 

follows: 

• A lump sum of $22,180.50, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

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

Petitioner’s counsel, Green & Schafle, LLC; 

• A lump sum of $15,272.53, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

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

Larkin Hoffman Law Firm; and

• A lump sum of $14,630.03, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

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

SiebenCarey, P.A.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of 

the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.