Court Opinion

ID: 4663430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-26 21:02:17.236503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:38.088012
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                            No. 19-597V
                                        (not to be published)

    DANIEL ANDREWS, Personal
    Representative of the Estate of                             Chief Special Master Corcoran
    NANCY ANDREWS,
                                                                Filed: January 8, 2021
                          Petitioner,
    v.                                                          Special Processing Unit                 (SPU);
                                                                Attorney’s Fees and Costs
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                         Respondent.

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.

                       DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

       On April 22, 2019, Nancy Andrews (“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 as a result of an influenza vaccination administered on October

1
   Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the action in this case, I am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 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 section ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
21, 2017. (Petition at 1). On December 29, 2020, a decision was issued awarding
compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 34).

        Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated December
30, 2020 (ECF No. 38), requesting a total award of $26,120.32 (representing $24,875.30
in fees and $1,245.02 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed
a signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses (EFC No. 38-
4). Respondent reacted to the motion on December 31, 2020, indicating that he is
satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met
in this case and defers to my discretion to determine the amount to be awarded (ECF No.
39).Petitioner filed a reply on December 30, 2020, indicating that she does not intend to
file a substantive reply to Respondent’s response. (ECF No. 40).

       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, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I
award a total of $26,120.32 (representing $24,875.30 in fees and $1,245.02 in costs) as
a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.
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. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                      s/Brian H. Corcoran
                                                      Brian H. Corcoran
                                                      Chief Special Master

3
  Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
                                                  2