# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-1347V Filed: April 4, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IRVIN WALSER, *

* Petitioner, *

v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law , Greensboro, NC, for petitioner. Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On October 14, 2016, Irvin Walser (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Com pensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et

seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered an injury to his right shoulder, including Parsonage-Turner syndrome and brachial neuritis, as a result of an influenza (“flu”) and tetanus, diphtheria , acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines administered to him on February 4, 2016. On March 28, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensati on to petitioner based on the par ties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 18).

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims'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 inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 On April 3, 2017, petiti oner filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 22). 3 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,128.00, and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $470. 46, for a total amount of $10,598.46. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner has filed a signed statement indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost s. § 15(e). Based on the reasonab leness of petitioner’s reques t 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 $10,598.46, 4 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Ward Black Law, P.A.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

3 In the motion, petitioner states t hat respondent does not object to the overall amount sought, as it is not an unreasonable amount to have been incurred for procee dings in this case to date. Respondent’s lack of objection to the amount sought in this case should not be construed as an admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.

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 co sts” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from char ging 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.