         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 16-0679V
                                      Filed: July 17, 2017
                                        UNPUBLISHED


    FONDA BRAVO,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                        Petitioner,                          Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    v.

    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.


Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Claudia B. Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                      DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On June 9, 2016, Fonda Bravo (“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 Guillain-Barré Syndrome
(“GBS”) as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 23, 2015.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters. On January 30, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding
compensation to petitioner based on the parties’ joint stipulation. (ECF No. 21.)

       On June 15, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF
No. 26.) Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,440.50 and attorneys’
costs in the amount of $502.21. Id. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner's

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. Thus, the
total amount requested is $17,942.71.

        Respondent did not file a response to petitioner’s motion.

      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, the undersigned
GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

       Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $17,942.71, 3 representing
reimbursement for all attorneys' fees and costs, in the form of a check payable
jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Maximillian J. Muller.

        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




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
