# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1375V Filed: January 27, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DIANNE GAIL STROBEL, *

* Petitioner, *

v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Office of Leah V. Durant, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 13, 2015, petitioner fil ed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion 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”) as a result of her November 19, 2014 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. On September 14, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on re spondent’s Proffer. (ECF No. 30).

On December 7, 2016, petit ioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 36). Peti tioner requests attorneys’ f ees in the amount of $23,121.00

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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 inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $794.59 for a total am ount of $23,915.59. Id. at 1. In accordance with General Order #9, petiti oner’s counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.

On December 21, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s application. (ECF No. 37). Respondent argues that “[n]ei ther the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in the re solution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that “[r]espondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an aw ard of attorneys’ fees and

costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. “Respondent respec tfully recommends that the special master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable aw ard for attorneys’

fees and costs.” Id. at 3.

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 cost s. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned

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

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $23,915.59 3 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Leah VaSahnja Durant.

The clerk of the court shall ent er 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 co sts” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from char ging 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.