In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-999V 

Filed: May 13, 2016 

Not for Publication 

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

JAMES KUNTZELMAN and KRISTA * 

KUNTZELMAN, Individually and as * 

Parents and Natural Guardians of * 

E.K., a Minor, * 

 * 

Petitioners, * 

 v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* 

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

Daniel J. Leeper, St. Petersburg, FL, for petitioners. 

Camille M. Collett, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 16, 2014, petitioners filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act”) alleging that their daughter, E.K., 

suffered grand mal and febrile seizures, epilepsy, and related medical complications caused by 

the measles mumps and rubella (“MMR”) vaccine she received on October 21, 2011. Pet. at 1. 

On April 28, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing the case for failure to make a 

prima facie case of causation in fact. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s 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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that 

all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets 

or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar 

information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a 

decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the 

document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within 

the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

Attorneys’ fees and costs decision; 

respondent does not object
2 

On May 12, 2016, petitioners filed an Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

In their motion, petitioners explain that they incurred attorneys’ costs of $1,060.91 and attorneys’ 

fees of $14,640.00, for a total of $15,700.91. However, in the “interest of judicial economy,” 

petitioner’s counsel has agreed to accept $12,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Fee App. at 2. 

In compliance with General Order #9, petitioners state that they incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. Id. at 1. On May 12, 2016, respondent’s counsel confirmed that respondent has no 

objections to an award of $12,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). It is not necessary for a petitioner to prevail in the case-in-chief in 

order to receive a fee award as long as petitioner brought the claim in “good faith and there was a 

reasonable basis for the claim.” Id. Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the 

lack of opposition, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total amount of $12,000.00, as a lump sum 

in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Leeper & Leeper. 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.