In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-0474V

Filed: October 30, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

TRACY E. CARROZZA,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Lynn Elizabeth Ricciardella, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On April 14, 2016, 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”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered severe shoulder pain after receiving the 

tetanus vaccine3 on July 24, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1-3, 12. On April 18, 2017, the 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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

3 Petitioner’s proof of vaccination shows she received an intramuscular injection of the Boostrix vaccine in 

her left deltoid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. Boostrix is a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine 

manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals. See 

https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm172925.htm (last visited on 

Apr. 18, 2017). 
2

undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the 

parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 31.) 

On October 20, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(ECF No. 35.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $22,377.00 and 

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,018.68. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order 

#9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. Id. at 2. Thus, the total amount requested is $23,395.68.

On October 27, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF 

No. 36.) 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 Chief Special 

Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees 

and costs.” Id. at 3. 

On October 27, 2017, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 37.) Petitioner stresses

respondent is satisfied that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is appropriate and has 

raised no specific objection to any of the billing entries or litigation costs requested. Id.

at 1. Petitioner asserts “[p]etitioner’s counsel has fully and carefully documented the 

hours counsel expended on this case, and has provided receipts for all costs claimed 

for reimbursement.” Id. at 2. 

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 $23,395.684 as a lump 

sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel 

Leah Durant.

 

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).
3

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

 

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.