In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1149V 

(not to be published)

GRETCHEN HANDY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: October 13, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Kate Gerayne Westad, SiebenCarey, Minneapolis, MN, for petitioner., for Petitioner.

Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On August 7, 2018, Gretchen Handy 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration which both meets the Table definition for SIRVA and caused-in-fact by the 

influenza vaccine she received on January 14, 2016. (Petition at ¶¶ 1, 6). On July 15, 

2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ 

stipulation. (ECF No. 33). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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

18, 2020, (ECF No. 38), requesting an award of $12,230.25 in fees and costs incurred by 

Larkin Hoffman Law Firm and $8,203.08 in fees and costs incurred by SiebenCarey PA. 

(Id. at 1). In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a signed statement 

indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 39). Respondent 

reacted to the motion on October 1, 2020 indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory 

requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case and defers to 

the Court’s discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. (ECF No. 40). 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. § 

15(e). Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $20,433.333 as follows:

• A lump sum of $12,230.25, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

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

Petitioner’s counsel, Larkin Hoffman Law Firm; and

• A lump sum of $8,203.08, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

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

Petitioner’s counsel, SiebenCarey PA.

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.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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.