# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1311V Filed: March 17, 2017
UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEGHAN ESPINOZA, *
* Petitioner, *
v. * * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Ju stice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 3, 2015, Meghan Espinoza (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“S IRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 14, 2014. On January 13, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ joint stipulation. (ECF No. 30).

On February 16, 2017, petitioner filed a mo tion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 35). Petitioner requests attor neys’ fees in the amount of $18,715.00, and

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims'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 inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,067.28, for a to tal amount of $19,782.28. Id. at 2. In accordance with General Order #9, petiti oner’s counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.

On February 22, 2017, respondent filed a re sponse to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 36). In her response, respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for res pondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an award of at torneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that she “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. Respondent recommends “that the Chief Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable aw ard of attorneys’
fees and costs.” Id. at 3.

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 cost s. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned
GRANTS petitioner’s motion for atto rneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $19,782.28, 3 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Muller Brazil, LLP.

The clerk of the court shall ent er 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 co sts” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from char ging 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.