In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-578V 

 Filed: October 31, 2017 

UNPUBLISHED 

SUSAN GRANEY, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

 

Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner. 

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 

 On May 13, 2016, 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 left shoulder pain as a result of her October 

17, 2014 influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petition at 1-4; Stipulation, filed June 1, 2017, at ¶¶ 2, 

4. On June 2, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to 

petitioner based on the parties’ Stipulation. (ECF No. 32.) 

 

 On August 8, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF 

No. 36.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $16,427.30 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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 $594.07. (Id. at 1.) In compliance with General Order #9, 

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

expenses. Thus, the total amount requested is $17,021.37. 

 

On August 10, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF 

No. 37.) 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.) 

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. However, the 

undersigned finds it necessary to reduce petitioner’s requested costs. 

Petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates 

charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 

Cl. Ct. 482, 484 1991). She “should present adequate proof [of the attorneys’ fees and 

costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should 

make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, 

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is 

obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 

424, 434 (1983). Although not explicitly stated in the statute, the requirement that only 

reasonable amounts be awarded applies to costs as well as fees. See Perreira v. Sec’y 

of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

1994). 

Petitioner seeks $59.00 for “6/27/2016 Payment to IK [petitioner’s counsel, Isaiah 

Kalinowski] to reimburse for Luncheon Meeting with Client at The Hamilton” (ECF No. 

36-3 at 1), a check and credit card receipt from The Hamilton, located in Washington, 

DC, dated June 20, 2016 and initialed by petitioner’s counsel is provided (ECF No. 36-3 

at 1). Petitioner’s counsel’s time log indicates that on June 20, 2016 he “[met] with 

client to introduce the Vaccine Program, to explore sources of damages, and to plan 

next steps to prosecute Petition.” (ECF 36-2 at 4). However, petitioner’s counsel fails 

to explain why this cost is reasonable. The undersigned finds that, as is consistent with 

this Court’s practice, it is not reasonable to reimburse petitioners' counsel for the cost of 

meals and other miscellaneous expenses on typical work days in the area where he 

normally works and resides. See Reginelli v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-
3 

972V, 2016 WL 1161309, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 1, 2016). Accordingly, 

petitioner’s requested costs are reduced by $59.00. 

 The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

§ 15(e). 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $16,962.373 as a lump 

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

Isaiah Kalinowski. 

 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.