Green v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-218V Filed: November 2, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TISIA GREEN, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioner, * v. * Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; * Respondent Does Not Object. SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Milton Ragsdale IV, Esq., Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioner. Camille Collett, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master:

On March 3, 2015, Tisia Green (“MS. Green,” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that she developed a shoulder injury related to an influenza vaccination that she received on or about October 15, 2014. See Petition (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1; Amended Pet., ECF No. 19. On April 14, 2017 the undersigned issued a Decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulations. See Decision, ECF No. 41.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete 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).

1 On October 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Motion for Fees, ECF No. 46. Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $21,982.503 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $203.14, for a total amount of $22,185.64. Id. at 1-2. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner did not incur any out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2.

On October 25, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioners’ Motion for Fees. Response, ECF No. 47. Respondent provided no specific objection to the amount requested or hours worked, but instead, “respectfully recommend[ed] that the Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. Petitioner did not file a reply.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” § 15(e)(1). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $22,185.64,4 representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $21,982.50 and costs in the amount of $203.14, in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Milton Ragsdale, Esq.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

3 I have made no determination as to counsel’s hourly rate in this matter; I merely conclude that the total sums requested seem reasonable and appropriate. 4 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). 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.