In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-0056V 

Filed: August 29, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

DONNA NAULT, 

 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.

Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On January 13, 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 her October 7, 2015 influenza vaccination. Petition 

at 1. On April 5, 2018, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to 

petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 42). 

On August 7, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF 

No. 48). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,934.90 and attorneys’ 

costs in the amount of $705.00. Id. at 1-2. In compliance with General Order #9, 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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

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 undersigned 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 

petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. Id. at 2. Thus, the total amount requested is $16,639.90. 

On August 21, 2018, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF 

No. 50). 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 he “is 

satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in 

this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special 

Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees 

and costs.” Id. at 3. 

Petitioner has filed no reply. 

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s 

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

undersigned finds 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, the undersigned 

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

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $16,639.903 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/Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

 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.