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


Menu:
  •     In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 20-1257V
    (not to be published)
    ANITA BRIANT,
    Chief Special Master Corcoran
    Petitioner,
    v.                                                          Filed: August 11, 2022
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                     Special Processing Unit                 (SPU);
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                             Attorney’s Fees and Costs
    Respondent.
    Brittany Rose Wolf-Freedman, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier, & Warshauer,
    LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
    Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
    On September 24, 2020, Anita Briant 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 vaccine administered to her on September 3,
    2019. (Petition at 1). On February 17, 2022, a decision was issued awarding
    compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 29).
    1  Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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).
    Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated May 16, 2022
    (ECF No. 39), requesting a total award of $20,713.27 (representing $19,699.65 in fees
    and $1,013.62 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. 39-4).
    Respondent reacted to the motion on May 17, 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. 41).
    On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply requesting “a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees
    and costs based upon the documents Petitioner submitted in her original Application”. (ECF
    No. 42). A scheduling order was filed on July 12, 2022, requesting Petitioner file
    supporting documentation in her request for attorney costs. (ECF No. 44). Petitioner filed
    a supplemental motion for attorney’s fees and costs providing the requested
    documentation. (ECF No. 45). Respondent did not file a response to Petitioner’s
    supplemental motion.
    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 $20,713.27 (representing $19,699.65 in fees and $1,013.62 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 filing a joint notice
    renouncing their right to seek review.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1257

Judges: Brian H. Corcoran

Filed Date: 9/12/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/12/2022