In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-778V 

Filed: June 13, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

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

ROMEO RAABE, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * 

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

 

On June 30, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury following his October 6, 2015

influenza vaccination. On April 18, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding 

compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 21).

On May 24, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF 

No. 25). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,187.00, attorneys’ 

costs in the amount of $878.32 for a total amount of $12,065.32. Id. at 2. In 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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

accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner 

incurred no in out-of-pocket expenses. 

On June 12, 2017, respondent filed a response stating respondent has no 

objection to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 26). Respondent cautions, however, that his 

lack of objection “should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the 

hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.” 

Id. 

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 and the lack of opposition 

from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $12,065.323 as a lump 

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

Paul R. Brazil, Esq. 

 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.