United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Miremont v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 8, 2017 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-0910V

Filed: April 25, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

********************************* TIMOTHY MIREMONT, *

Petitioner, *

v. *

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

Respondent. *

* **************************** Craig S. Watson, Baton Rouge, LA, for petitioner.

Ann Donohue Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On August 21, 2015, Timothy Miremont (“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 from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on August 22, 2013. On October 27, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ joint stipulation. (ECF No. 36).

On April 24, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 41). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,630.00, and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $1,275.93 for a total amount of $13,905.93. Id. at 1, Attachment at 1. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.

On April 25, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. (ECF No. 43). Respondent states that he does not objection to the overall amount sought, as it is not an unreasonable amount to have been incurred for proceedings in this case to date. Respondent further states that his lack of objection to the amount sought in this case 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 $13,905.933 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Craig S. Watson.

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.