In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0866V 

(not to be published)

TAMMEE HINTON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: November 6, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.

Kimberly Shubert Davey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On June 12, 2019, Tammee Hinton 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 she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome as the result 

of an adverse reaction to an October 1, 2016 influenza vaccination. (Petition at 4-5). On 

September 18, 2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based 

on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 31). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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

30, 2020, (ECF No. 38), requesting a total award of $52,032.63 (representing $51,329.60

in fees and $703.03 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that she has incurred out-of-pocket expenses in the amount 

of $14.35. (ECF No. 38-3). Respondent reacted to the motion on September 30, 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. 39). Petitioner filed a reply that same day requesting 

the full amount of fees and costs be awarded as requested in Petitioner’s motion. (ECF 

No. 40). 

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 $52,046.983 as follows:

• A lump sum of $52,032.63, representing reimbursement for 

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

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel; 

• A lump sum of $14.35, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s 

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

• Petitioner requests 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