In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1088V 

Filed: September 9, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

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

 STEPHANIE STOUT, on behalf of * 

 Z.S., a minor child, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * * 

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

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, Fl, for petitioner.

Julia Wernett McInerny, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On November 7, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”) on behalf of Z.S., a minor child. Petitioner alleged that Z.S. suffered 

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his December 5, 2011 influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination. Petition at 1-2; Stipulation, filed Feb. 24, 2016 at ¶¶ 2, 4. On February 25, 

2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on

the parties’ Stipulation. (ECF No. 32).

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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 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). 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, the 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 Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2 

On August 29, 2016, petitioner filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. (ECF No. 36).3 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,774.30

and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $3,944.34 for a total amount of $22,718.64. Id. at 

1. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner 

incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id.

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

§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request 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 $22,718.644 as a lump 

sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, 

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar. 

 The clerk of the court shall enter 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 that respondent “does not object to the overall amount sought.” (ECF 

No. 36 at 1). Petitioner further indicates that “[r]espondent’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.” Id. 

 

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 costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. 

Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging 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 can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.