# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-873V Filed: November 21, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

STEVEN FENN,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Howard Scott Gold, Gold Law Firm, LLC, Wellesley Hills, MA, for petitioner. Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNE YS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 25, 2016, petitioner filed a pet ition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered from brachial neurit is (“BN”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination. On September 5, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petiti oner based on the parties’ stipulat ion. (ECF No. 30.)

On October 9, 2017, petitioner filed a moti on for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 33.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,731.70 and attorneys’

costs in the amount of $1,456.30. ( Id. at 7, 8.) In accord ance with General Order #9,

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims'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 inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 petitioner's counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Thus,

the total amount r equested is $16,188.00.

On October 22, 2017, respondent filed a re sponse to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 34.) Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vacci ne Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any role for respondent in the re solution of a request by a petitioner for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attor neys’ fees and costs are met in

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

Master exercise her discretion and determi ne a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees

and costs.” Id. at 3.

Petitioner has filed no reply.

The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost s. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned

GRANTS petitioner’s motion for atto rneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $16,188.00 3 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel

Howard S. Gold.

The clerk of the court shall ent er 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 co sts” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from char ging 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.