Stites v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0271V

STEPHANIE STITES, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 1, 2024

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On January 7, 2021, Stephanie Stites 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 received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), on November 16, 2019, in her left arm. Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) within the time period set forth in the Table, or in the alternative, that her alleged shoulder injury was caused and/or significantly aggravated by the 1Because 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 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). vaccine. On July 19, 2023, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 34.

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $21,085.92 (representing $20,255.40 in fees plus $830.52 in costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion”) filed January 17, 2024, ECF No. 38. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2.

Respondent reacted to the motion on January 19, 2024, 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. 39. On February 12, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply requesting the fees and costs be awarded in full. ECF No. 40.

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. Motion Ex. 2 at 1 - 8. 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 $21,085.92 (representing $20,255.40 in fees plus $830.52 in costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Leah VaSahnja 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 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.