# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1430V (not to be published)

TATIANA DAUTKHANOVA and

RUSLAN DAUTKHANOV, on behalf of

E.D., a Minor Child,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 30, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Danielle Strait , Maglio Christopher & Toale

, PA, Seattle, WA , for P etitioner.

Alexis B. Babcock , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

On September 19, 2018, Tatiana Dautkhanova and Ruslan Dautkhanov, on behalf

of E.D., (“P etitioner s ”) 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 s allege that E.D. suffered a vasovagal syncope and dental fractures caused by an

influenza vaccination administered on December 9, 2017. ( Petition at 1 )

. On February 5

,

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the D ecision 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 2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner s based on the
Respondent’s proffer

. ( ECF No. 52 ).

Petitioner s filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated May 6 , 2020

, (ECF

No. 58 ) , requesting a total award of $ 33,260.20 (representing $ 32,363.60 in fees and
$ 896.60 in costs). Pursuant to General Order #9

, counsel for Petitioner s warrant that

Petitioners personally incurred co sts in the amount of $ 6,437.00 in pursuit of their claim
and $60.00 to be advanced for co urt costs required for maintaining the conservatorship

. ( Id . at 2 ). Respondent reacted to the motion on May 8 , 2020

, indicating that s 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. 59 ). Petitioner s filed a reply requesting that the Court awa rd Petitioner s all fees and

costs requested in Petitioners Application

. (ECF No. 60 ).

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with P etitioner’s request. In my experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested

ho urs or rates.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney ’ s fees and costs

. §
15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney ’ s fees and costs.

I award a total of $ 39, 757 .20 as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 33,260.20 , representing reimbursement for fees and costs,

in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner s and Petitioner’s counsel ;

• A lump sum of $ 6,437.00 , representing reimbursement for Petitioners costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner s and;

• A lump sum of $60.00

, payable to Petitioner ’s for court filing fees for the maintenance of the conservatorship required and;

• Petitioner requests all checks be forwarded to Magl io Christopher & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, S uite 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. 3

3 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