Court Opinion

ID: 4152395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-14 20:01:59.114606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:46.287647
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 14-1201V
                                     Filed: February 17, 2017
                                        Not for Publication

*************************************
A.G., a Minor, by and through                *
his Parent and Natural Guardian,             *
JORGE GUTIERREZ ,                            *
                                             *
               Petitioner,                   *      Attorneys’ fees and costs decision;
                                             *      reasonable attorneys’ fees and
 v.                                          *      costs
                                             *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                          *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                          *
                                             *
               Respondent.                   *
                                             *
*************************************
Maximillian J. Muller, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

                    DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

       On December 12, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that the
human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine his son A.G. received on March 28, 2013 caused A.G.
to develop transverse myelitis (“TM”). On September 1, 2016, the undersigned issued a
damages decision in this case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

1
 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this
case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that
all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets
or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar
information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a
decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the
document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within
the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.
         On February 1, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $28,977.50 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $12,132.58, for
a total request of $41,110.08.

        On February 17, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion explaining that
he is satisfied this case meets the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Resp. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends
that the [undersigned] exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’
fees and costs.” Id. at 3.

        Under the Vaccine Act, a special master or a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of
compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1); Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1893 (2013).
The special master has “wide discretion in determining the reasonableness” of attorneys’ fees
and costs. Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.
1994); see also Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(“Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee
applications.”).
        Based on her experience and review of the billing records submitted by petitioner, the
undersigned finds that petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs request is reasonable. Therefore, the
undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Accordingly, the
court awards $41,110.08, representing attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form
of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and Muller Brazil, LLP in the amount of
$41,110.08.

       In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2017                                                   s/ Laura D. Millman
                                                                              Laura D. Millman
                                                                               Special Master

2
  Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
                                                    2