In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1995V

Filed: October 10, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

HEATHER LYNCH,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Corcoran, Chief Special Master:

On December 20, 2017, 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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) following a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) 

vaccination on July 12, 2016. Petition at 1. On June 7, 2019, a decision was issued by 

then Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey awarding compensation to petitioner 

based on the respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 31. 

 

1

It is my intent to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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 find that the 

identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 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unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it 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 E-Government Act of 2002.

44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

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 September 17, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

ECF No. 37. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,996.10 and 

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,196.01. Id. at 18. In compliance with General 

Order #9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-ofpocket expenses. ECF No. 38. Thus, the total amount requested is $22,192.11.

 

On September 23, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF 

No. 39. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 

requires respondent to file a response to 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 requests that the Court exercise its discretion and 

determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. 

Petitioner did not file a reply.

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 attorneys’ fees and costs. § 

15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, I hereby GRANT

petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Accordingly, petitioner is awarded the total amount of $22,192.113 as a 

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

counsel Ronald Craig Homer.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

 

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).

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.