Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Putignano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 18-1192 (2020)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: 18-1192 Visitors: 20
Judges: Brian H. Corcoran
Filed: Jan. 31, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1192V (not to be published) JOSEPH PUTIGNANO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: December 31, 2019 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES, Attorney’s Fees and Costs Respondent. Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On August
More
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-1192V
                                        (not to be published)


    JOSEPH PUTIGNANO,
                                                                Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
    v.                                                          Filed: December 31, 2019


    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                     Special Processing Unit                 (SPU);
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                             Attorney’s Fees and Costs


                         Respondent.


Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                       DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

       On August 10, 2018, Joseph Putignano (“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 the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine he received on September 30, 2016, caused him to develop a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). (Petition at 1). On September 13, 2019, a
decision was issued awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’
stipulation. (ECF No. 34).


1  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required 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). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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).
       Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated December 5,
2019 (ECF No. 39), requesting a total award of $25,704.52 (representing $24,873.30 in
fees and $831.22 in costs). In accordance with General Order #9 Petitioner filed a signed
indicating that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (ECF No. 40). Respondent
did not file a reply.

       I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my
experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested
hours or rates.

       The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. §
15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I
award a total of $25,704.52 (representing $24,873.30 in fees and $831.22 in costs) as a
lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. In
the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court),
the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                      s/Brian H. Corcoran
                                                      Brian H. Corcoran
                                                      Chief Special Master




3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
                                                 2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer