United States Court of Federal Claims, 2020

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 27, 2020 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1045V (not to be published)

DANIEL JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 25, 2020

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Respondent.

Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On July 17, 2018, Daniel Johnson 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 alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of his November 21, 2016 influneza vaccination. (Petition at 1-7). On June 12, 2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 43).

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

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).

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated September 14, 2020, (ECF No. 48), requesting a total award of $51,000.13 (representing $48,406.00 in fees and $2,594.13 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9 Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that he incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $6.65. (ECF No. 48-3). Respondent reacted to the motion on September 24, 2020 indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case and defers to the Court’s discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. (ECF No. 49). That same day, Petitioner filed a reply requesting the fees and costs be awarded in full. (ECF No. 50).

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. § 15(e). Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $51,006.78 3 as follows: • A lump sum of $51,000.13, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel; • A lump sum of $6.65, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and; • Petitioner requests the check be forwarded to Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4

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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.