In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0295V 

(not to be published)

CHRIS HEMPEL, 

 Petitioner,

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 31, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

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

Petitioner.

Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On March 16, 2020, Chris Hempel 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration, which meets the definition of a Table SIRVA, after receiving the influenza 

vaccine on October 15, 2018. (Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 9). On October 19, 2021, a decision 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Decision 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 pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).

CORRECTED
2

was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. 

(ECF No. 31). 

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated April 25, 2022

(ECF No. 36), requesting an award of $29,145.53 (representing $27,085.00 in fees and 

$2,060.53 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed 

statement indicating that he incurred out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $400.00. 

(Id. at 2). Respondent reacted to the motion on May 2, 2022, indicating that he is satisfied 

that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this 

case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded at the Court’s discretion. (ECF 

No. 37). On May 4, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply requesting “that the Court award 

petitioner all fees and costs requested in Petitioner’s Application”. (ECF No. 38). 

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’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 $29,545.533 as follows:

• A lump sum of $29,145.53, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ 

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

Petitioner’s counsel, Leah VaSahnja Durant ; and

• A lump sum of $400.00, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s 

costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

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 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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.