In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-552V 

 Filed: August 31, 2017 

UNPUBLISHED 

J.B., a minor, by and through her 

parent and natural guardian, DEREK 

BAILEY, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

 

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. 

Justine Elizabeth Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 

 On May 6, 2016, 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”). Petitioner alleged that J.B. suffered left shoulder injuries as the result of her July 

2, 2015 meningococcal and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccinations. 

On March 30, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to 

petitioner based on the parties’ Stipulation. (ECF No. 26.) 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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 June 29, 2017, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(ECF No. 31.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,216.50 and 

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $550.21. (Id. at 2.) In accordance with General Order 

#9, petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. 

Thus, the total amount requested is $13,766.71. 

On July 7, 2017, respondent filed a response stating respondent has no objection 

to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 32.) Respondent cautions, however, that his lack of 

objection “should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly 

rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.” Id. 

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s 

request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the 

undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. 

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 application for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $13,766.713 as a lump 

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

Maximillian J. Muller. 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master 

 

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), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.