In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-1332V 

 Filed: November 1, 2017 

UNPUBLISHED 

MICHELE M. PHILLIPS, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

 

Michael Elio Ciccolini,, Ciccolini & Associates CO, LPA, Akron, OH, for petitioner. 

Douglas Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 

 On October 13, 2016, Michele M. Phillips (“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 she suffered a shoulder 

injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), including bursitis and rotator cuff tear 

as a result of being administered an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 25, 2013. On 

June 6, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner 

based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 22.) 

 

 On August 16, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF 

No. 29.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,190.00 and attorneys’ 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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 

costs in the amount of $848.15. (Id. at 1.) In compliance with General Order #9, 

petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket 

expenses. (ECF No. 34). Thus, the total amount requested is $18,038.15. 

 

On August 16, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF 

No. 30.) 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 he “is 

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

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

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

and costs.” Id. at 3. 

On September 12, 2017, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 31.) Petitioner notes 

that as respondent did not make any specific objection to her fee application, she 

requests that the undersigned approve her request. Id. at 1. 

The undersigned notes that the attorneys and paralegals spent several hours of 

time discussing the case with each other in various interoffice communications. In 

addition, three attorneys billed for preparing for a status conference on November 22, 

2016. The undersigned has previously found it reasonable to reduce fees paid to 

petitioner due to duplicative billing. See Ericzon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

10-103V, 2016 WL 447770 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2016) (reduced CHCC's 

overall fee award by 10 percent due to excessive and duplicative billing). The 

undersigned and other special masters have previously noted the inefficiency that 

results when multiple attorneys work on one case and have reduced fees accordingly. 

See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,, 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (Fed. Cl. 2009); 

see also Austin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10–362V, 2013 WL 659574, at 

*14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan 31, 2013) (reducing attorneys' fees due to “excessive 

interoffice communications”). Generally speaking, having multiple attorneys work on a 

file is ineffective and inefficient. However, given that this is petitioner’s counsel’s first 

case in the Vaccine Program, a certain amount of interoffice communication is 

unavoidable. Thus, the undersigned will not reduce the fee award in this case. Should 

petitioner’s counsel continue to practice in the Vaccine Program, it should be noted that 

similar duplicative entries and time billed for interoffice communications may not be 

compensated. 

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 costs. 

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

GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 
3 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $18,038.15,

3 as a lump 

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

Michael L. Ciccolini. 

 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.