In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-290V
Filed: January 19, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
*********************************
MARY AGRESTI, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
****************************
Jeffrey S. Pop. Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On March 1, 2016, 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by her November 6, 2014 influenza vaccination. On
December 21, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to
petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 28).
On December 29, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 32). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,062.00 and
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Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $964.95 for a total amount of $13,026.95. Id. At 1. In
compliance with General Order #9, petitioner has filed a signed statement indicating
petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
On January 12, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF
No. 33). Respondent argues that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13
contemplates any role for respondent in the resolution of a request by a petitioner for an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent adds, however, that she “is
satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in
this case.” Id. at 2. Petitioner “respectfully recommends that the Chief Special Master
exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and
costs.” Id. at 3.
On January 18, 2017, petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 34). Petitioner stressed
that respondent did not object to the rates, hours, or expenditures in petitioner’s
application for fees and costs. (Id.)
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
§ 15(e). 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 $13,026.95 3 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Jeffrey S. Pop, Esq.
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