Lory v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-220

Petitioner Consuelo Lory filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging a right shoulder injury caused by a 10/29/2014 influenza vaccination; compensation was awarded based on respondent’s proffer on 7/18/2016.
Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on 9/7/2016 seeking $14,821.00 (fees) + $788.88 (costs) = $15,609.88; counsel reported no out-of-pocket expenses for petitioner.
Respondent filed a response stating she takes no position on the entitlement question but suggested a reasonable total fee range of $12,000–$14,000 based on comparable cases and her experience.
Petitioner replied, contesting respondent’s cited benchmark cases as inapplicable and noting respondent identified no specific billing problems in petitioner’s request.
The Chief Special Master reviewed billing records, found the requested hours and rates reasonable, and also awarded an additional $936.50 for time spent preparing the reply.
The court awarded a lump sum of $16,546.38 jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, and directed entry of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act	Lory sought reasonable fees and costs incurred in the successful claim	Respondent did not contest statutory entitlement and stated requirements were met	Entitlement satisfied; fees and costs are awardable
Whether requested hours and rates are reasonable	Lory submitted detailed billing and asked full amount, including reply preparation	Respondent suggested a lower benchmark total ($12k–$14k) based on other cases, without contesting specifics	Court reviewed records, found hours and rates reasonable, awarded full requested amount
Whether respondent may meaningfully challenge fee requests in this process	Lory argued respondent’s cited cases were inapplicable and respondent offered no specific deficiencies	Respondent argued it has no formal role in fee resolution but provided a reasonableness range based on experience	Court treated respondent’s input as nonbinding; evaluated fee request on its merits and awarded fees accordingly
Whether additional fees for preparing the reply are recoverable	Lory requested $936.50 for reply work	Respondent did not object to the specific fee for reply	Court found the supplemental hours reasonable and awarded the full amount (noting similar future replies may be scrutinized)

Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (attorney fee awards under the Vaccine Act encompass all charges and preclude the attorney from collecting additional fees beyond the award)