# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18

- 1149 V (not to be published)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 P etitioner.

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

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

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 caus ed

- 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 P etitioner based on the parties’ stipulation

. (ECF No. 33 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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) (Fe deral Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the D ecision 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 per tinent subpara graph 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 a n 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

in dicating that she incurred no out

- of

- pocket expenses. ( ECF N o . 3 9 )

. 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 therea fter.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’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

, P etitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 20,433.33 3 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 P etitioner and
P etitioner’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 P etitioner and
P etitioner’s counsel, SiebenCarey PA

.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), t he 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 render ed. 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.