Dunn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2021 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1431V
(not to be published)
CHARLOTTE DUNN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 21, 2021
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Respondent.
Theodore J. Hong, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On September 19, 2018, Charlotte Dunn 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result
of an influenza vaccine and/or pneumococcal vaccine administered on October 13, 2015.
(Petition at 1). On March 15, 2021, a decision was issued awarding compensation to
Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 67).
1
Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the action in this case, I am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 “§” ref erences 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 April 29, 2021
(ECF No. 72), requesting an award of $77,656.91 (representing $75,878.70 in fees and
$1,778.21 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed
statement indicating that she incurred out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $41.54.
(ECF No. 72-3). Respondent reacted to the motion on May 13, 2021, 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.
(ECF No. 73). On May 13, 2021, Petitioner filed a reply requesting and entry of the
attorney’s fees and costs requested. (ECF No. 74).
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.
Section 15(e). Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $77,698.45 3
as follows:
• A lump sum of $77,656.91, representing reimbursement for
attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel; and
• A lump sum of $41.54, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s
costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
• Petitioner requests checks be forwarded to Maglio Christopher &
Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suit 710, Sarasota, Florida, 34236.
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 f iling 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