United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Nathans v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 9, 2017 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-1147V

Filed: October 3, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

********************************* SHARON NATHANS, *

Petitioner, *

v. *

* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

Respondent. *

* **************************** Jeffrey S. Pop, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On October 7, 2015, Sharon Nathans (“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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 15, 2012. Petition at 1. On September 6, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 27).

On September 21, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 31). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,887.00, and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $687.57, for a total amount of $13,574.57. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner and her counsel filed a signed statement stating that Ms. Nathans did not incur any fees or costs related to the prosecution of her claim.

On October 3, 2016, respondent filed a response to the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs stating that respondent does not object to the overall amount sought, as it is not an unreasonable amount to have been incurred for the proceedings to date. Respondent states that her lack of objection should not be construed as an admission, concession or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of opposition from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $13,574.573 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Jeffrey S. Pop.

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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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. 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). 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.

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