Soysal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2019 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0601V
Filed: October 10, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
SULE SOYSAL,
Petitioner,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Corcoran, Chief Special Master:
On April 26, 2018, 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 alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on September 27,
2017. Petition at 1. On August 30, 2019, a decision was issued by, then Chief Special
Master Nora Beth Dorsey, awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’
stipulation. ECF No. 31.
On September 11, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
ECF No. 35. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,608.50 and
1Itis my intent to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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 find that the
identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 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unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it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).
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).
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $708.68. Id. at 1. In compliance with General Order
#9, petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket
expenses. Id. at 48. Thus, the total amount requested is $21,317.18.
On September 25, 2019, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. ECF
No. 36. Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13
requires respondent to file a response to a request by a petitioner for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that he “is satisfied the
statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.”
Id. at 2. Respondent “respectfully requests that the Court exercise its discretion and
determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3.
Petitioner did not file a reply.
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 attorneys’ fees and costs. §
15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, I hereby GRANT
petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Accordingly, petitioner is awarded the total amount of $21,317.183 as a
lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s
counsel Jimmy A. Zgheib.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3This 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.
2