Mulligan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2018 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0738V
Filed: July 13, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL MULLIGAN,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Petitioner, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
James K. C. Glober, Law Office of James Glober, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for petitioner.
Ann D. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 16, 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 brachial neuritis as a result of receiving the
tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on July 23, 2012. On February
21, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based
on the parties’ joint stipulation. (ECF No. 37.)
On June 28, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF
No. 41.) An amended motion was filed on July 12, 2017. (ECF No.43) Petitioner
requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $22,040.00 and attorneys’ costs in the amount
of $8,805.21. (Id. at 2.) In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a signed
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.
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).
statement indicating that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, the total
amount requested is $30,845.21.
On June 28, 2017, respondent filed a response stating respondent has no
objection to petitioner’s motion. (ECF No. 42.) Respondent cautions, however, that his
lack of objection “should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the
hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.”
Id.
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request. In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears reasonable, and the
undersigned finds 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 and the lack of opposition
from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs.
Accordingly, the undersigned awards $30,845.21, 3 representing
reimbursement for all attorneys' fees and costs, in the form of a check payable
jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, James K. C. Glober.
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
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.
2