# Twofoot v. Secretary of Health and Human Services > United States Court of Federal Claims · March 4, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4512589 ## Case - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** March 4, 2020 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Brian H. Corcoran - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment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/4512589 ## Opinion text In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1866V (not to be published) TIFFANY TWOFOOT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: January 27, 2020 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES,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 December 1, 2017, Tiffany Twofoot (“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 a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a consequence of the influenza (“flu”) immunization she received on or about October 7, 2016, and further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. (Petition at 1-2). 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On July 17, 2019, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 43). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated January 14, 2020, (ECF No. 48), requesting a total award of $29,008.16 (representing $27,310.10 in fees and $1,698.06 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9 Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (Id at 2). Respondent reacted to the motion on January 16, 2020 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. 49). On January 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a reply requesting that the Court award the fees and costs requested in full. (ECF No. 50). 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 $29,008.16 (representing $27,310.10 in attorney’s fees and $1,698.06 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/4512589. Public record. Not legal advice.