# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 5

- 1144 V

Filed: December 28, 2016

U NPUBLISHED

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

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

P arent and natural guardian, *

LACY MIRON, *

*

Petitioner, *

v. *

* Attorney s’ Fees and Costs;

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

AND HUMAN SERVICES

, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

M aximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA

, for petitioner.

A lexis Babcock , U

. S

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

DECISION ON ATTORNEY S’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On October 7, 2015

, p etitioner 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

partie s ’ 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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 wi th

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 da ys 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 $ 1 7,746.50 and

attorneys’ costs in the amount of $ 2 ,760.30 for a total amount of $ 2 0,506.80

. Id. at 2

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

incurred n o out

- of

- pocket expenses.

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

No. 2 6 ). R espondent 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 Ch ief 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 attorney s’ 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 award s the total of $ 2 0,506.80 3 as a lump

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

M aximillian Muller, Esq

.

T he 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 cove r 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.