# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-937V (Not to be Published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JOHN JASTISAN, * * Petitioner, * Filed: October 17, 2016 * v. * Decision; Attorney’s Fees and Costs. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paul R. Brazil , Muller Brazil, LLP, Dreshe r, PA, for Petitioner.

Traci R. Patton , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On November 26, 2013, John Jastisan filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”), alleging, among other things, that the influenza (“flu” ) vaccine he received on Septem ber 16, 2011, caused him to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) and/or Chroni c Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). 2 ECF No. 1. This matter was originally set for hearing in May of this year; however, the parties were able to reach an informal settlement agreement and requested I issue a “15-Week”

1 Because this decision contains a reas oned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18 (b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Chil dhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Ac t” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 30 0aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).2 Order, which I did. ECF No. 34. The parties then f iled their stipulation fo r an award of damages on August 4, 2016 (ECF No. 37), and I adopted the stipulation as my decision granting damages on August 10, 2016. ECF No. 38.

Petitioner has now filed a moti on for final attorney’s fees and costs, dated October 7, 2016. ECF No. 43. Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $51,278.90. Id . Respondent has formally repr esented that she does not ob ject to the sum requested. ECF No. 44. In addition, and in co mpliance with General Order No. 9, Petitione r represents that he has not incurred any out-of-pocket, litigati on-related expenses in conjunction with this proceeding. ECF No. 43.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and cost s as reasonable. Accordingly, an award of $51,278.90 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Paul R. Brazil, Esq. Payment of this amount repr esents all attorn ey’s fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with

the terms of Petitioner’s motion. 3



### IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite en try of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.