VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00073
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00073
Petitioner: MADDISON VERDECIA
Filed: 2016-12-19
Decided: 2016-12-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-11-24
Condition: right shoulder injury
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 11999

AI-assisted case summary:
Maddison Verdecia filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 19, 2016, alleging a right shoulder injury caused-in-fact by her November 24, 2014 influenza vaccination. The parties later entered into a stipulation, and a decision awarding compensation was issued on September 19, 2016. Subsequently, on November 30, 2016, Maddison Verdecia filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, requesting $11,332.00 in fees and $667.24 in costs. Respondent did not contest the statutory requirements for the award. The Chief Special Master reviewed the billing records and found the request to be reasonable. Accordingly, the motion was granted, and a total award of $11,999.24 was made for attorneys' fees and costs, payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00073-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-04-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/19/2016) regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master - Fees ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00073-UNJ Document 30 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-0073V
Filed: December 19, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MADDISON VERDECIA, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Jennifer Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On January 13, 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 alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury caused-in-fact
by her November 24, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1-2. On September 19,
2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on
the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 20).
On November 30, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 24). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,332.00 and
attorneys’ costs in the amount of $667.24 for a total amount of $11,999.24. Id. at ¶ 4.
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).

Case 1:16-vv-00073-UNJ Document 30 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner
incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id.
On November 30, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion. (ECF
No. 25). 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 (citation omitted). Petitioner “respectfully recommends that the Chief
Special Master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’
fees and costs.” Id. at 3.
Petitioner has not filed a reply.
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 $11,332.00 in attorneys’ fees and
$667.24 in attorneys’ costs for a total award of $11,999.243 as a lump sum in the
form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Maximillian
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
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