In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1051V
Filed: August 10, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
*********************************
DARREN OSBORNE, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
****************************
Anne C. Toale, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Douglas Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On September 21, 2015, Darren Osborne (“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 injuries,
including Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on February 7, 2014. Pet. at ¶¶ 1, 2, 7. On July 13, 2016, the undersigned
issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation.
(ECF No. 30).
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
On August 10, 2016, petitioner filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs. (ECF No. 34).3 Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,022.70
and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $2,287.24 for a total amount of $13,309.94. Id. at
¶ 2. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner has filed a signed statement
indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 35). Additionally, in
accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner
incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Pet. Motion at ¶ 5.
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 the total of $13,309.944 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Anne C. Toale.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 The motion was filed as an unopposed motion and specifically states that respondent has no objection
to petitioner’s request. Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Pet. Motion”) at ¶
3. Respondent has specified, however, that her “lack of objection to the amount sought in this case
should not be construed as an admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the
number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.” Id. at ¶ 4.
4This 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 the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2