United States Court of Federal Claims, 2016

Nolop v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided February 17, 2016 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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.

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

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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). 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.

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