In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-22V 

Filed: February 21, 2018 

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

ERIC MATEER,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

UNPUBLISHED

Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

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

Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. 

Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Oler, Special Master: 

 On January 6, 2016, pro se Petitioner, Eric Mateer, filed a petition for compensation in 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),2alleging that he suffered 

“the ‘Table Injury’ known as SIRVA” [Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration], as 

well as significant aggravation of “pre-existing issues related to scapular winging, poor posture, 

and range of motion” due to his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 6, 2013.3

 ECF 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, I intend to post this 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 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 

18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that 

satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule 

requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, 

I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete 

such material from public access. 

2

 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”), 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). 

3

 In his Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent points out that Petitioner in fact received the flu 

vaccination on January 7, 2013, and not January 6, 2013, as originally alleged by Petitioner. See

ECF No. 34 at 1, n. 1. 
2

No. 1 at 1. Petitioner subsequently secured attorney representation in this case, with the current 

counsel of record’s motion for substitution being granted on August 4, 2016. See ECF entry of 

8/4/2016, granting a motion to substitute attorney. 

 Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition on April 5, 2017, acknowledging 

that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Program. ECF No. 36. 

The special master that was previously assigned this case issued a decision on April 12, 2017, 

dismissing the case for insufficient proof. ECF No. 37. Judgment entered on May 16, 2017. 

ECF No. 39. 

On August 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“AFC 

Motion”), requesting attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,358.30, and $490.04 in costs. See

AFC Motion, ECF No. 41. In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a signed 

statement indicating that he did not incur any out-of-pocket expenses while being represented by 

his counsel of record.4 See Ex. 19, ECF No. 41-3. 

Respondent filed a response to Petitioner’s AFC motion on August 29, 2017. 

Respondent’s Response, dated August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 42). 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. Additionally, he “respectfully 

recommends that the [undersigned] exercise [her] discretion and determine a reasonable award 

for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. 

This case was transferred to my docket on December 5, 2017. ECF No. 45. This matter 

is now ripe for a decision. 

I. Applicable Law 

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

§ 15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his or her claim, the award of attorneys’ fees 

is automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369, 373 (2013). However, a petitioner need 

not prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good 

faith” and there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. §15(e)(1). 

II. Discussion 

Respondent does not argue that this case lacks good faith or a reasonable basis. Upon my 

review of the record, and an examination of the overall circumstances of this case, I also agree 

that this case was filed in “good faith,” and with a “reasonable basis.” 

 

4

 Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on January 6, 2016, 

requesting to proceed in this case without being required to prepay filing fees. See ECF No. 2. 

The special master that was previously assigned this case granted that application on January 12, 

2016. ECF No. 6. 
3

Based on my review of the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s AFC Motion (see

Ex. 17, ECF No. 41-1), the hours expended on this matter appear to be reasonable, and I find no 

cause to reduce the requested attorney, paralegal, or law clerk hourly rates. Similarly, after 

reviewing the costs invoices attached with Petitioner’s AFC Motion (see Ex. 18, ECF No. 41-2), 

I find the requested litigation costs to be reasonable, and will award them in full. 

III. Total Award Summary 

 Accordingly, I award $18,848.34,

5

representing $18,358.30 in attorneys’ fees and 

$490.04 in costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, 

Alison H. Haskins. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.6

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Katherine E. Oler 

 Katherine E. Oler 

 Special master 

 

5

 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 

Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

6

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a 

notice renouncing the right to seek review.