In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1045V 

(not to be published)

DANIEL JOHNSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 25, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On July 17, 2018, Daniel Johnson filed a petition for compensation under the 

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

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result 

of his November 21, 2016 influneza vaccination. (Petition at 1-7). On June 12, 2020, a 

decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s 

proffer. (ECF No. 43). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

internet. 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated September

14, 2020, (ECF No. 48), requesting a total award of $51,000.13 (representing $48,406.00

in fees and $2,594.13 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9 Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that he incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of 

$6.65. (ECF No. 48-3). Respondent reacted to the motion on September 24, 2020

indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s 

fees and costs are met in this case and defers to the Court’s discretion to determine the 

amount to be awarded. (ECF No. 49). That same day, Petitioner filed a reply requesting 

the fees and costs be awarded in full. (ECF No. 50). 

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my 

experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested 

hours or rates. 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. § 

15(e). Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $51,006.783 as 

follows:

• A lump sum of $51,000.13, representing reimbursement for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to 

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel;

• A lump sum of $6.65, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s 

costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and;

• Petitioner requests the check be forwarded to Maglio Christopher & 

Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236. 

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of 

the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4

3 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).

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master