# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 740 V

Filed: April 22, 2016

U NPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AMY LOEDING

, *

*

Petitioner, *

v. *

* Attorney s’ Fees and Costs;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES

, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA

, for petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY S’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On July 16, 2015

, p etitioner 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration (SIRVA) following receipt of her October 10, 2014 influenza vaccination

. On March 18, 20 16

, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to

petitioner based on respondent ’ s proffer

. (ECF No. 27 ).

On April 6, 2016

, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No.

31 ). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 1 3,952.50 and attorneys’

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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 wi th

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 undersigne d 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).2 costs in the amount of $ 1 ,304.91 for a total amount of $ 1 5,257.41

. 3 Id. at 1

. In

compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating

petitioner incur red no out

- of

- pocket expenses. On April 20, 2016 , respondent filed a

response to petitioner’s mot ion. 4 (ECF No. 33 ).

In her response, 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 she “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees

and costs are met in this case. ” Id. at 2. Respondent further “ asserts that a reasonable

amount for fees and costs i n the present case wou ld fall between $ 1 2,000.00 to

$ 1 4,000.00 ” but provides no basis or exp lanation for how she arrived at this proposed

range. Id. at 3.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records subm itted with petitioner’s

request . In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the

undersigned finds no cause to re duce 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 reques t , the undersigned

GRANTS petitioner’s mo tion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly , the undersigned award s the total of $ 1 5,257.41 5 as a lump

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

J effrey Pop, Esq

.

T he clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 6

3 On April 7, 2016, petitioner filed an Amended Motion for Attorneys ’ Fees and costs. ( ECF No. 32.) The

amended motion raised additional arguments supporting the amount of petitioner ’ s request for attorneys ’

fees and costs , but did not seek to amend the actual amount of the fees and costs requested on

petitioners ’ initial motion.

4 Respondent ’ s response addressed both petitioner ’ s initial motion for attorneys ’ fees and costs as well as

petitioner ’ s amended motion for attorneys ’ fees and costs.

5 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all

charges by the attorney against a client, “advan ced 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).

6 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master