# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 1102 V

Filed: May 4, 2018

Not for Publication

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

DUSTIN LOGAN

, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*
Respondent. *

*

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

Nancy R. Meyers

, Greensboro, NC , for petitioner.
Darryl R. Wishard , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On August 16, 2017 , petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10

– 34 (2012) alleging that influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received

on October 14, 2014 and October 26, 2015 caused his Guillain

- Barré syndrome (“GBS”)

. Pet.

P reamble.

On April 24, 2018 , the parties filed a stipulation in which they agreed to settle this case
and described the settlement terms. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged injury or any other i njury. Nonetheless, the parties
agreed to resolve this matter informally. On April 24, 2018 , the undersigned issued a decision

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ website, in accordance w ith the E

- Government Act of 2002

, 44 U.S.C. § 3 501 note (2012)
(Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services) . Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that
all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets

or commercial or financial info rmation that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar
information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a
decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such informati on prior to the

document ’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within
the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access. Attorneys’ fees and costs decision;
Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs2

awarding compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth in the stipulation. Judgment

entered on April 26, 2018.

On May 3, 2018 , petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting attorneys’ fees of $ 19,482.50 and attorneys’ costs of $ 308.03 , for a total request of $ 19, 790.53

.

On M ay 4 , 2018

, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion explaining he is satisfied that this case meets the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e)(1)(A)

- (B). Resp. at 2

. Respondent “respectfully recommen ds that the [undersigned] exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’

fees and costs.” Id. at 3. On the same day, petitioner filed a reply c oncurring with respondent ’ s

r esponse

. Reply at 1.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.”

42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e)(1)

. The special ma ster has “wide discretion in determining the
reasonableness” of attorneys’ fees and costs. Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS , 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34

(1992), aff’d , 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS , 3

F.3d 1517, 1519 (Fed. C ir. 1993) (“ Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their
prior experience in reviewing fee applications.”).

Based on her experience and review of the billing records submitted by petitioner, t he
undersigned finds petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs request reasonable. Therefore, the
undersigned GRANTS petitioner’ s application for attorneys’ fees and costs. Accordingly, the

court awards $19,790.53

, representing attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Ward Black Law

. The award shall be in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and Ward Black

Law in the amount of $19, 790.53 ;

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment he rewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2018 /s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman
Special Master

2 Pu rsuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.