Knasel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2023 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1366V
DONNA KNASEL,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 25, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On October 13, 2020, Donna Knasel filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, after receiving an
influenza vaccine on November 8, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 11. On February 14, 2023, I
issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner, following briefing by the parties. ECF
No. 39.
1
Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of
2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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
inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 (2018).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $41,444.53 (representing $39,560.60 for fees and $1,883.93 for costs). Petitioner’s
Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed Aug. 25, 2023, ECF No. 44. In accordance
with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no
out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2.
Respondent reacted to the motion on August 29, 2023, 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 to my discretion.
Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 45. Two days later - on August
31, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply requesting attorney’s fees and costs be awarded in full.
ECF No. 46.
I note this case required additional briefing regarding the issue of damages. See
Status Report, filed May 19, 2022, ECF No. 28 (reporting an impasse in damages
discussions); Petitioner’s Brief on Damages, filed Aug. 8, 2022, ECF No. 31; Petitioner’s
Reply Brief, filed Sept. 5, 2022, ECF No. 37. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately
11.5 hours drafting the brief in support of damages; and 13.6 hours drafting the reply brief,
totaling 25.1 hours. ECF No. 44-1 at 8-11. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and
I will award the attorney’s fees requested. (And all time billed to the matter was also
reasonably incurred).
Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed
costs. ECF No. 44-2. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or
amounts sought.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $41,444.53 (representing $39,560.60 in fees
and $1,883.93 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Leah V. Durant. In the absence of a timely-filed
motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall
enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3