Court Opinion

ID: 4446320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-11 16:03:49.37742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:18.967255
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 18-0574V
                                      Filed: May 24, 2019
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    JANET HOLLAND,

                        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.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On April 20, 2018, 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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her October 28, 2015 influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1. On April 3, 2019, the undersigned issued a decision
awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 29.

      On May 3, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No.
33. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $26,833.30 and attorneys’ costs

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, the undersigned is required 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).

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).
in the amount of $1,031.61. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner
filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
Id. at 2. Thus, the total amount requested is $27,864.91.

        On May 6, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF No. 34.
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 May 6, 2019, petitioner filed a reply. ECF No. 35. Petitioner disputes
respondent’s position that he has no role in resolving attorneys’ fees and costs and
further reiterates his view that his attorneys’ fees and costs in this case are reasonable.

      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 $27,864.91 3 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Diana Lynn Stadelnikas. Petitioner requests check be forwarded to Maglio
Christopher & Toale, PA 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236.

        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.
                                                      2
3