1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 4

- 1004V

Filed: October 20 , 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

I RWIN REICH

, *

* Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

Petitioner, *

v. * Attorneys’ F ees and Costs; Reasonable

* Amount Reques ted to which Respondent

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Does Not Object.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

N ora Constance Marino

, L aw Offices of Nora Constance Marino

, G reat Neck, NY

, for Petitioner.

A driana Teitel

, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION 1

On O ctober 16, 2014

, Irwin Reich (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under

the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 et seq. (2006)

(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine 2 on

October 2 5, 2012 caused his to suffer from Guillain

- Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)

. Petition (“Pet.”)

at 1

- 4

. On J uly 30 , 2015, the undersigned filed a decision dismissing the case for insufficient

proof. D ecision , EC F No. 26

.

On October 20 , 2015

, R espondent filed a “ Stipu lation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’

Fees and Costs ”

. Pursuant to their Stipulation, t he parties have agreed to an award of $ 1 1,000.00

i n attorneys’ fees and cost s. In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner ’s counsel

represents that Petitioner has not incu rred any costs in pursuit of this claim

. Stipulation, ECF

No. 3 1

.

The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees a nd costs is appropriate, pursuant to

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’

website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 not e (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each

party has 14 days within which to file a motion for redaction “of any information furnished by that party

(1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion

of privacy.” In the absence of such motion, the entire decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 Petitioner also alleged that a shingles vaccination, received on December 10, 2012 , caus ed his injury.

However, this is not a covered vaccine under the Vaccine Act. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a).2

42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and

appropriate. Accordingly , the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $ 1 1,000.00 , in the

form of a check made payable jointly to Pet itioner and Petitioner’s counsel, N ora

Constance M arino

.

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 the parties’

stipulation. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of

notice renouncing the right to seek review.