In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-0960V 

Filed: December 1, 2016

Unpublished

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

FLORA ADLER, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 

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

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * * 

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

David P. Murphy, Esq., Greenfield, IN, for petitioner.

Gordon E. Shemin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On August 8, 2016, 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of receiving the 

Prevnar 13 vaccine on June 22, 2015. On November 10, 2016, the undersigned issued 

a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer. 

(ECF No. 22).

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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

On December 1, 2016, petitioner filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. (ECF No. 26).3 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$9,625.00, attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,026.74, and petitioner’s out-of-pocket 

costs in the amount of $1,267.89, for a total amount of $11,919.63. Id.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of opposition 

from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $11,919.634 as follows:

(1) A lump sum of $10,651.74, representing reimbursement for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, David P. Murphy; and

(2) A lump sum of $1,267.89, representing reimbursement for 

petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Flora 

Adler. 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master

 

3 The motion was filed as an unopposed motion and states that respondent has no objection to the overall 

amount sought, as it is not an unreasonable amount to have been incurred for proceedings this case. 

(ECF No. 26 at 3). Respondent’s lack of objection to the amount sought in this case should not be 

construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the number of hours 

billed, or the other litigation related costs. Id.

4 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).

5 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.