In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-1184V 

Filed: March 16, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

JACLYN ARNOLD, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On September 22, 2016, Jaclyn Arnold (“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 an injury to 

her right shoulder as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 

1, 2013. Petition at 1-2. On October 27, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision 

awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 34). 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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

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).
2 

On February 28, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(ECF No. 39)3. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,076.30 and

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $707.66. (Id. at 1). In compliance with General Order 

#9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. (Id. at 2). Thus, the total amount requested is $10,783.96. 

In light of all the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly including the 

history of expedited resolution within the Special Processing Unit, and mindful of 

respondent’s response to the instant application, the undersigned finds upon review of 

the submitted billing records and based on the undersigned’s experience evaluating fee 

applications in similar Vaccine Act claims that the overall amount sought for attorneys’ 

fees and costs is reasonable. Thus, especially in the absence of any particularized 

objection from respondent, further analysis is not warranted. Special Masters have 

“wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.” 

Hines v. HHS, 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (Fed. Cl. 1991). Moreover, Special Masters are 

entitled to rely on their own experience and understanding of the issues raised. Wasson 

v. HHS, 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (Fed. Cl. 1991) aff’d in relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 

(Fed.Cir.1993) (per curiam). J.B. v. HHS, No. 15-67V, 2016 WL 4046871 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2016) (addressing attorneys’ fees and costs in the context of a 

history of attorneys’ fees and costs awards in over 300 similarly situated SPU cases.). 

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 $10,783.964 as a lump 

sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel 

Amber Diane Wilson. Petitioner request payment be forwarded to Maglio 

Christopher & Toale PA, 1606 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota Florida, 34236.

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5

 

3 The motion was filed as an unopposed motion and specifically states that respondent has no objection 

to petitioner’s request. (ECF No. 39). 

4 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).

5 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.
3 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master