In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1677V
(not to be published)
DEBRA H. CHILDRESS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: November 13, 2020
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Respondent.
Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On October 31, 2018, Debra H. Childress 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 permanent indentation in her left
shoulder as a result of receiving an influenza and tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis
vaccines in her left shoulder on October 14, 2016. (Petition at 1-2). On July 6, 2020, a
decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’
stipulation. (ECF No. 35).
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 November 3,
2020, (ECF No. 42), requesting a total award of $22,472.57. This represents $6,446.50
in fees and costs incurred by counsel’s former firm Rawls Law Group and $16,026.07 in
fees and costs incurred by counsel’s current firm, Sands Anderson, P.C. (ECF No. 42).
In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that
she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 42-3). Respondent reacted to the
motion on November 6, 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. 44). That same day,
Petitioner filed her reply requesting the fees and costs be awarded in full. (ECF No. 45).
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, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $22,472.57 3 as
follows:
• A lump sum of $6,446.50, representing reimbursement for attorneys’
fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner
and Rawls Law Group; and
• A lump sum of $16,026.07, representing reimbursement for
attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioner and Sands Anderson, P.C.
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
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3