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

Petitioners, * 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UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

John Christiansen, Bellmore, NY, for Petitioners, pro se;

Lisa A. Watts, U.S. Department 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, acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine, which 

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

the required medical records between June and October 2008.

On October 8, 2008, respondent filed her Rule 4 report, concluding that petitioners were 

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

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

 

1

The 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 information 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. Chone 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 Dr. Chen on 

March 28, 2011. During a status conference held on April 25, 2011, the 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

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

noted that Mr. Christiansen, acting pro se, handled this case with diligence 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 brings a petition in good faith 

and who has 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 petitioners, acting pro se, gathered and filed medical 

records, participated in numerous status conferences, obtained an expert witness to testify on 

their behalf, produced two substantial briefs, and argued their case at a hearing. Thus, because 

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

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

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 court awards a check made 

payable to petitioners 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 attorney.

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.