In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1144V

Filed: December 28, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

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

M.M., a minor, by and through her *

Parent and natural guardian, *

LACY MIRON, *

*

Petitioner, *

v. *

* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

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

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Maximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Alexis Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On October 7, 2015, 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”). Petitioner alleged that M.M. suffered Guillain Barre Syndrome (“GBS”)

caused by her September 24, 2014 influenza vaccination. On June 23, 2016, the 

undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the 

parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 21).

 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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 November 30, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

(ECF No. 25.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,746.50 and 

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $2,760.30 for a total amount of $20,506.80. Id. at 2. 

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

incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.

On December 16, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF 

No. 26). Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 

contemplates any role for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that she “is 

satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in

this case.” Id. at 2. Petitioner “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master 

exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and 

costs.” Id. at 3. 

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

§ 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned 

GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $20,506.803 as a lump 

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

Maximillian Muller, Esq.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

 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), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.