# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 100 V (not to be published)

ANA GALAN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 11, 2020

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

Anne Carrion Toale, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL , for P etitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 18, 2019

, Ana Galan 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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration wh ich meets the Vaccine Injury Table definition for SIRVA or, in the alternative, was caused in fact by the influenza vaccine she received on November 3,

2016

. ( Petition at ¶¶ 2, 14

- 15, 17

- 18 )

. On July 2, 2 020

, a decision was issued awarding compensation to P etitioner based on the parties ’ stipulation

. (ECF No. 25 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 pe rtinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated August 14,

2020

, (ECF No. 30 ) , requesting a total award of $ 39,357.61 (representing $ 37,344.10 in fees and $ 2,013.51 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9

, Petitioner filed a
signed statement indicating that she incurred no out

- of

- pocket expenses. (ECF No. 30

- 3 )

. Respondent reacted to the motion on September 1, 2020 indicating that 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 award ed. (ECF

No. 31 ). On September 2, 2020

, P etitioner filed a reply requesting the full amount of fees

and costs be awarded

. (ECF No. 32 .)

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

hours or rates.

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

. § 15(e). Accordingly

, P etitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 39,357.61 3 as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 39,357.61 , representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to P etitioner and

P etitioner’s counsel and

• Petitioner requ ests che ck be forwarded to Maglio, Christoph er & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Su i te 710, Sarasota F l orida, 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. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran 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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.