# McGOWEN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES > United States Court of Federal Claims · January 2, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10736608 ## Case - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** January 2, 2024 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Brian H. Corcoran - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10736608 ## Opinion text In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1266V LAURA McGOWEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: November 21, 2023 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On April 21, 2022, Laura McGowen 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 alleged that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on November 12, 2018. Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 35. 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 $37,757.03 (representing $36,803.70 in fees plus $953.33 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed Sept. 8, 2023, ECF No. 41. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 40. Respondent reacted to the motion on Sept. 12, 2023, reporting 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, ECF No. 42. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. 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. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 41-4. 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 $37,757.03 (representing $36,803.70 in fees plus $953.33 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato. 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 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 f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10736608. Public record. Not legal advice.