# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 39 V (not to be published)

DEAN LESLIE

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 14, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC , for

P etitioner.

Colleen Clemons Hartley , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

O n January 8, 2018

, Dean Leslie, M.D. filed a P etition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration, a defined Table Injury, after receiving the influenza vaccine on September

30, 2016 . (Petit ion at ¶¶ 1, 14, 17 )

. On January 28, 2021

, a decision was issued awarding
compensation to P etitioner in the amount of $131,321.86

. (ECF No. 77 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 D ecision 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated June 14,

2021 (ECF No. 82 ) , requesting a n award of $ 91,594.83 (representing $ 89,875.80 in fees
and $ 1,719.03 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed

statement indicating that he incurred o ut

- of

- pocket expenses in the amount of $866.99

. (ECF No. 82

- 3 )

. Respondent reacted to the motion on June 18, 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. 83 ). On June 18, 2021

, P etitioner filed a reply requesti ng fees and costs be

awarded in full

. (ECF No. 84 )

.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’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 $ 92,461.82 3

as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 91,594.83 , representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to

P etitioner and P etitioner’s counsel ; and

• A lump sum of $ 866.99 , representing reimbursement for P etitioner’s costs, in the f orm of a check payable to P etitioner.

• Petitioner requests checks b e forwarded to M a glio Christopher & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Su ite 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 t o 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 collectin g 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master