Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McGill v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 18-1300 (2020)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: 18-1300 Visitors: 20
Judges: Brian H. Corcoran
Filed: Oct. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1300V (not to be published) DONNA MCGILL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 15, 2020 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES,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. Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES
More
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-1300V
                                        (not to be published)


    DONNA MCGILL,
                                                                Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
    v.                                                          Filed: September 15, 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.

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

                       DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

       On August 28, 2018, 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 6, 2017. (Petition
at 1). On January 7, 2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner
based on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 31).


1  Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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).
      Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated July 6, 2020,
(ECF No. 36), requesting a total award of $32,559.84 (representing $31,046.60 in fees
and $1,513.24 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 did not file a response

      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 $32,559.84 (representing $31,046.60 in fees and $1,523.24 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


Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer