         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-198V
                                    Filed: October 11, 2017
                                        UNPUBLISHED


    ALICE ODOM,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                        Petitioner,                          Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    v.

    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.


Mary Coffey, Coffey & Nichols, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On February 10, 2017, 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following her October 3, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. On
August 28, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to
petitioner based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 18.)

       On September 27, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 22.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,130.00 and
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $948.78. (ECF No. 22-2 at 2.) In accordance with

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2National 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).
General Order #9, petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-
pocket expenses. Thus, the total amount requested is $7,078.78.

       On September 28, 2017, respondent filed a response stating respondent has no
objection to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 23.) Respondent cautions, however, that his
lack of objection “should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the
hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.”
Id.

      The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the
undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

       The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of opposition
from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs.

       Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $7,078.78 3 as a lump sum
in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Mary
Coffey, Esq.

        The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                           s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           Nora Beth Dorsey
                                                           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), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
                                                      2
