# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1045 V (not to be published)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 P etitioner.

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

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

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, 2 020

, a

decision was issued awarding compensation to P etitioner based on the Respondent ’ s proffer

. (ECF No. 43 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the D ecision 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). T h at same day, P etitioner filed a reply requesting

the fees and costs be awarded in full

. (ECF No. 50 )

.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’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

, P etitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 51,006.78 3 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

P etitioner and P etitioner’s counsel ;

• A lump sum of $ 6.65 , representing reimbursement for P etitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to P etitioner and ;

• Petitioner requests the check be forwarded to Maglio C hristopher & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710 , Saras ota

, 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