In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-1320V 

Filed: September 15, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ESMERALDA MORALES, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Diana Sedar, Maglio, Christopher and Toale, PA (FL), Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. 

Camille Collett, Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 

 On November 4, 2015, Esmeralda Morales (“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” or “Program”). Petitioner alleged that she 

suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by the influenza vaccination she received on 

March 19, 2014. Petition, at ¶¶ 1, 9. On August 2, 2016, the undersigned issued a 

decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer to which 

petitioner agreed. (ECF No 36).

 

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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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 September 13, 2016, petitioner filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. (ECF No. 40).3 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount 

of $14,000.00. Id. at ¶ 3. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner has filed a 

signed statement indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.4

 

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 motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $14,000.005 as a lump 

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

Diana Sedar of Maglio, Christopher & Toale PA. Per petitioner’s request, the award 

for attorney’s fees and costs shall be forwarded to Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, 

1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota Florida 34236 which is the address of record for 

petitioner’s counsel. Id. at 2.

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master

 

3

 The motion was filed as an unopposed motion and indicates respondent has no objection. Motion at ¶ 

4. 

4

 Additionally, in accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner 

incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Motion at ¶ 5. 

5

 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). 

6

 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.