# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JOHN CHRISTIANSEN and *

CATHERINE CHRISTIANSEN, *

parents of W.C., a minor, *

* No. 08

- 244V

Petitioner s

, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: June 12, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Petitioners’ out

- of

- pocket costs;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * award in the amount to which

* respondent does not object

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

John Christiansen

, Bellmore, NY

, for Petitioner s, pro se ;

Lisa A. Watts , U.S. Depar tment of Justice, Washington, DC , for Respondent.

On May 20, 2013, John and Catherine Christiansen (“petitioners”) filed an application for

costs in the above

- captioned matter

, requesting reimbursement in the amount of $4,496.80

. On

June 10, 2013, respondent filed a response to petitioners’ application, advising the Court that she

has no objection to the amount requested by petitioners

. The Court awards this amount

.

Petitioners filed a petition in the Vaccine Program on April 7, 2008

, alleging that their

child, W.C.

, was harmed by the diphtheria, tetanus, acellul ar pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine, which

is a component of the Pediarix vaccine administered to W.C. on July 12, 2005. P etitioners filed

the required medical records between June and October 2008.

On October 8, 2008, r espondent filed her Rule 4 report, concl uding that petitioners were

not entitled to compensation. O n January 8, 2009, petitioners filed a status report discussing a

medical theory for the claim that the DTaP vaccination caused W.C.’ s injuries. P etitioners also

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.filed journal articles in support of their medical theory. During a status conference held the

following week , petitioners discussed their efforts to obtain the services of a medical expert

.

On November 5, 2010, petitioners submitted the report of Dr. Ch one Ken Chen, a

physician who practices pediatric neurology at New York University Downtown Hospital and at

the Chang Comprehensive Health Center. On January 14, 2011, respondent filed a responsive

expert report from Dr. Russell Snyder. Petitioners filed a supplemental report from D r. Chen on

March 28, 2011. During a status conference held on April 25, 2011, t he parties indicated that

they were ready to proceed to hearing.

A hearing was held on October 24, 2011 , in New York City. Dr. Chen and Dr. Snyder

provided in

- person testimony at the hearing

. Each party submitted prehearing and posthearing

brief s

. On November 13, 202, the undersigned issued a decision denying compensation, but

noted that Mr. Christiansen , acting pro se, handled this case with dili gence and competence, and

that “it is extremely unlikely that a licensed attorney could have achieved a different result for

W.C.” Decision , 2012 WL 6766650, at *16.

Even though compensation was denied, a petitioner who bring s a petition in good faith

and who ha s a reasonable basis for the petition may be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. See 42

U.S.C. § 300aa

– 15(e)(1). 1 Here, the petitioner s , acting pro se, gathered and filed medical

records, participated in numerous status c onferences, obtain ed an expert witness to testify on

their behalf

, produced two substantial briefs, and argued their case at a hearing

. Thus, because

petitioner s acted in good faith and because there was a reasonable basis for proceeding,

petitioner s are eligible for reimbursement of costs. Respondent does not contend that petitioner s

failed to satisfy these criteria.

Petitioners seek a total of $ 4,496.80 in costs incurred while pursuing this claim , to which

respondent has no objection

. After reviewing the request, the c ourt awards a check made

payable to petitioner s in the amount of $ 4,496.80 for litigation costs. The court thanks the

parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Christian J. Moran

Special Master

1 Petitioners did not incur any attorneys’ fees, as they were not represented by an atto rney.

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.