Court Opinion

ID: 4242282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-05 17:05:12.254197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:57.137266
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-1088V
                                     Filed: August 29, 2017
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    PAULINE ZAND,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for
       petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On August 31, 2016, Pauline Zand (“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”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder
injury casually related to the tetanus vaccine she received on November 11, 2013.
Petition at ¶¶ 1, 7. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 14. On June 20, 2017, the undersigned issued a
decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer to which
petitioner agreed. (ECF No. 26).

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
        On August 8, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Pet. Motion”) (ECF No. 29).
Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,937.90 and attorneys’ costs in
the amount of $699.62. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4). In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner
filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
See Exhibit 9, filed as 2nd Attachment to Pet. Motion (ECF 29-2). Thus, the total amount
requested is $18,637.52. Pet. Motion at ¶ 8.

        On August 22, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF
No. 30). 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.

       On August 22, 2017, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 31). Petitioner argues
that respondent incorrectly asserts that he has no role to play in the determining the
appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees and costs in vaccine cases. Id. at 2. Petitioner
maintains that “[i]f Respondent finds a request to pay attorneys’ fees or reimburse case
costs to be unreasonable, it is Respondent’s responsibility to present evidence of such
to the Court.” Id. (citations omitted). Petitioner asserts she has provided sufficient
evidence to support her request. Id. at 3.

      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, the undersigned
GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

       Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $18,637.523 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,
Diana Stadelnikas. Per petitioner’s request, the check shall be forwarded to Maglio,
Christopher & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, FL 34236.

3This 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).

                                                    2
        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

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.
                                                     3