# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20

- 0295 V (not to be published)

CHRIS HEMPEL

,

Petitioner,

v.

SEC RETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Fi led: 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 P etitioner.

M allori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECI SION ON ATTORNEY ’S FEES AND COSTS 1

O n 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1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ). C O RRECTED2 w as issued awarding compensation to P etitioner 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 a n award of $ 29,145. 5 3 (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 tha t 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

, P etitioner filed a reply requesting “that the Court award petitioner all fees and costs requested in Petitioner’s Application”

. (EC F No. 38 )

.

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
, P etitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 29,545.53 3 as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 29,145. 5 3 , representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to P etitioner and P etitioner’s counsel, Leah VaSahnja Durant ; and

• A lump sum of $ 400.00 , representing reimbursement for P etitioner’s costs, in the fo rm of a check 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 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 ent ry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.