The opinion
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0295V
(not to be published)
CHRIS HEMPEL,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 31, 2022
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 March 16, 2020, Chris Hempel 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration, which meets the definition of a Table SIRVA, after receiving the influenza
vaccine on October 15, 2018. (Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 9). On October 19, 2021, a decision
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Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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).
was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer.
(ECF No. 31).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated April 25, 2022
(ECF No. 36), requesting an award of $29,145.53 (representing $27,085.00 in fees and
$2,060.53 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed
statement indicating that he incurred out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $400.00.
(Id. at 2). Respondent reacted to the motion on May 2, 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. 37). On May 4, 2022, Petitioner filed a reply requesting “that the Court award
petitioner all fees and costs requested in Petitioner’s Application”. (ECF No. 38).
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, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $29,545.53 3 as follows:
• A lump sum of $29,145.53, representing reimbursement for attorneys’
fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel, Leah VaSahnja Durant ; and
• A lump sum of $400.00, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s
costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
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. 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3
This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would
be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4
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