# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1 299 V (not to be published)

ARLYN HALPERN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: December 6 , 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Attorney’s Fees and Costs

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

P etitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

On August 27, 2019, Arlyn Halpern (“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 left shoulder injury related to

vaccine administration as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 12, 2018.
( Petition at 1 )

. On May 7 , 2021

, a decision was issued awarding compensation to

P etitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer

. (ECF No. 2 5 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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) (Federal 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 subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated November 8

, 2021, (ECF No. 31 ) , requesting a total award of $ 30,513.47 (representing $ 29,081.40 in
fees and $ 1,432.07 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a
signed statement indicating that Petitioner incurred out

- of

- pocket expenses in the amount
of $407.45

. ( Id . at 2 ). Respondent reacted to the motion on November 1 1

, 2021, 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 resolution of the amount to be awarded to my

discretion

. (ECF No. 3 2 ). Petitioner filed a reply on November 12, 2021, requesting that

the Court award all fees and costs requested in Petitioner’s application. (ECF No. 33).

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

. Section
15(e). Accordingly

, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 30,920.92 3 as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 30,513.47 , representing reimbursement for fees and
costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and

Petitioner’s counsel and;

• A lump sum of $ 407.45 , representing reimbursement for P etitioner’s
costs, in the form of a c heck payable to P etitioner.

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 rende red. 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.