Court Opinion

ID: 3178319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-02-18 13:11:24.087398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:18:05.039027
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-684V
                                   Filed: November 18, 2015
                                        UNPUBLISHED
*********************************
ROBERT NOLOP,                                     *
                                                  *
                         Petitioner,              *
                v.                                *
                                                  *       Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Stipulation;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                               *       Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                               *
                                                  *
                         Respondent.              *
                                                  *
****************************
Mark Paul Schloegel, Popham Law Firm, Kansas City, MO, for petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On June 30, 2015, 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 related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (flu) vaccine he received on October
24, 2012. Petition at 1. On October 27, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision
awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer.

       On November 18, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties stipulate to an award of $12,298.27. 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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.

2National 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). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the
lack of any objection by respondent, the undersigned GRANTS the request for approval
and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.

       Accordingly, the undersigned awards a total of $12,298.273 as a lump sum
in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Mark
Schloegel.

        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
  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.

                                                     2