United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Bub v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided November 5, 2015 · Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-370V

Filed: October 14, 2015 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED DEBRA BUB, * * Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman Petitioner, * * v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; * Reasonable Amount Requested to SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Which Respondent Does Not Object. AND HUMAN SERVICES, * *

Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clifford L. Shoemaker, Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein, Vienna, VA, for Petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

DECISION 1

On April 30, 2014, Debra Bub (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006). Petitioner alleged that a Tetanus-Diptheria-acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination administered on August 25, 2013 caused her to develop an allergic reaction that damaged her immune system. On July 3, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner.

On October 13, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Pursuant to their Stipulation, the parties have agreed to an award of $19,527.42 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order Number 9, the parties represent that Petitioner has not incurred any out-of-pocket litigation costs in pursuit of her claim.

The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $19,527.42, in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Clifford J. Shoemaker, of the law firm of Shoemaker, Gentry, & Knickelbein.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.