Beaver v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2017 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-0991V
Filed: October 4, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
*********************************
ROCHELLE BEAVER, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
****************************
Ronald Homer, Conway, Homer, & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Camille Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On October 15, 2014, 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”). On December 5, 2014, petitioner filed an amended petition, clarifying
the specific vaccination received by petitioner. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from the tetanus-
diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on October 26, 2011.
Amended Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 3. On June 22, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision
awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 44).
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
On September 23, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 49). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $19,428.30,
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $5,362.46, and petitioner’s out-of-pocket costs in the
amount of $66.79 for a total amount of $24,857.55. Id. at 1. In compliance with
General Order #9, petitioner has filed a signed statement indicating petitioner incurred
$66.79 in out-of-pocket expenses. See Petitioner’s Statement, filed Sept. 23, 2016
(ECF No. 50).
On September 28, 2016, respondent filed a response stating respondent has no
objection to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 51).
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 $24,857.553 as follows:
 A lump sum of $24,790.76, representing reimbursement for
attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Ronald Homer of Conway,
Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C.; and
 A lump sum of $66.79, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s
costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3This 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), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2