Court Opinion

ID: 3155169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-17 13:02:04.292135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:10.000278
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-0428V
                                     Filed: October 6, 2015
                                          Unpublished
*********************************
JO ANN DREAS,                                     *
                                                  *
                         Petitioner,              *
                v.                                *
                                                  *        Attorney Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                           *        Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
HUMAN SERVICES,                                   *
                                                  *
                         Respondent.              *
                                 *
*********************************

Philip C. Denton, The Law Office of Philip C. Denton, St. Louis, MO, for petitioner.
Lara A. Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                        DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On April 28, 2015, Jo Ann Dreas (“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” or “Program”]. The petition alleged that petitioner suffered a
shoulder injury due to the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she
received on August 13, 2012. On October 5, 2015, I issued a decision awarding
compensation to petitioner based on a joint stipulation.

        On October 6, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties agree upon an award of
$18,743.49 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order #9,
petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended
at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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).
      The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42
U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e). I find the proposed amount to be reasonable.

      Accordingly, I award the total of $18,743.49 3 as a lump sum in the form of a
check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Philip C. Denton.

        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, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-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, HHS, 924
F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4
 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
See Vaccine Rule 11(a).

                                                    2