# Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

> United States Court of Federal Claims · January 7, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4469862

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** January 7, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/4469862

## Opinion text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1884V
(not to be published)

TARMESHA BROWN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: December 5, 2019

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Respondent.

Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

On December 6, 2017, Tarmesha Brown, (“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”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered extreme left
arm pain ultimately diagnosed as brachial neuritis after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on April 5, 2017. (Petition at 1). On November 5,
2019, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’
stipulation. (ECF No. 42).

1
Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 ruling 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 “§” 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 November 6,
2019, (ECF No. 43), requesting a total award of $23,299.30 (representing $22,407.00 in
fees and $892.30 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner’s counsel
represents that Petitioner has incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (Id. at 3). Respondent
reacted to the motion on November 20, 2019 indicating that he is satisfied that the
statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case and
defers to the Court’s discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. (ECF No. 44).
Through electronic correspondence on November 20, 2019, counsel for Petitioner
informed the staff attorney managing the case that Petitioner did not intend to file a reply.
See Informal Remark, November 20, 2019.

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. §
15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I
award a total of $23,299.30 (representing $22,407.00 in attorney’s fees and $892.30 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4469862. Public record. Not legal advice.