# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1431 V (not to be published)

CHARLOTTE DUNN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 21, 2021

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

Theodore J. Hong, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA , for P etitioner.

Adriana Ruth Teitel , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY ’ S FEES AND COSTS 1

On September 19, 2018

, Charlotte Dunn 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 Guillain

- Barre Syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine and/or pneumococcal vaccine administered on October 13, 2015

. ( Petition at 1 )

. On March 15, 2021

, a decision was issued awarding compensation to

P etitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer

. (ECF No. 67 )

.

1 Because this unpublished D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 pert inent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated April 29, 2021
(ECF No. 72 ) , requesting a n award of $ 77,656.91 (representing $ 75,878.70 in fees and

$ 1,778.21 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed

statement indicating that she incurre d out

- of

- pocket expenses in the amount of $41.54

. (ECF No. 72

- 3 )

. Respondent reacted to the motion on May 13, 2021, indicating that he
is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are

met in this case

, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion

. (ECF No. 73 ). On May 13, 2021

, P etitioner filed a reply requestin g and entry of the

attorney’s fees and costs requested

. (ECF No. 74 )

.

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

. Section 15(e). Accordingly

, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $ 77,698.45 3

as follows:

• A lump sum of $ 77,656.91 , representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to

P etitioner and P etitioner’s counsel ; and

• A lump sum of $ 41.54 , representing reimbursement for P etitioner’s costs, in the fo rm of a check payable to P etitioner.

• Petitioner requests checks be forwarded to Maglio C hristopher &

T o ale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suit 710, Sarasota, Flo rida, 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

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 render ed. 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 t o Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master