Court Opinion

ID: 7807120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:01:31.024887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:21.463736
License: Public Domain

Corrected

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 20-1886V
                                        (not to be published)

    AMANDA HENEAGE,
                                                                Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
    v.                                                          Filed: August 4, 2022

    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                     Special Processing Unit                 (SPU);
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                             Attorney’s Fees and Costs

                         Respondent.

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.

Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.

                       DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

       On December 17, 2020, Amanda Heneage 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 (“SIRVA”), which meets the Table definition for SIRVA, after receiving the
influenza vaccine on October 29, 2019. (Petition at ¶¶ 1, 10-11). On March 29, 2022, a

1  Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 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 references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s
proffer. (ECF No. 28).

       Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated June 10,
2022 (ECF No. 34), requesting a total award of $27,296.29 (representing $26,244.00 in
fees and $1,052.29 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a
signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 34-
3). Respondent reacted to the motion on June 30, 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.
35). On July 6, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply requesting “the fees and costs incurred by
Petitioner are reasonable and should be awarded without reduction.” (ECF No. 36).

      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 $27,296.29 (representing $26,244.00 in fees and $1,052.29 in costs) as
a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and mctlaw. Petitioner
requests payment be forwarded to mctlaw, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota,
Florida, 34236. 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 filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
                                                 2