Rosseter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2022 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0014V
(not to be published)
FRANK ROSSETER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 8, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Respondent.
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 COSTS 1
On January 6, 2020, Frank Rosseter 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 injuries, including Guillain-Barré
Syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 27, 2017. (Petition
at Preamble). On November 16, 2021, a decision was issued awarding compensation to
Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 31).
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Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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.
2National 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).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated May 16, 2022
(ECF No. 36), requesting an award of $27,657.75 (representing $23,730.00 in fees and
$3,927.75 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 $406.70.
(Id. at 2). Respondent reacted to the motion on May 16, 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 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply stating that “petitioner respectfully
requests 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 $28,064.45 3
as follows:
• A lump sum of $27,657.75, representing reimbursement for attorneys’
fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel and
• A lump sum of $406.70, 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
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.
2
Chief Special Master
3