Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ahlum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 12-763V. (2016)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20160617925 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 26, 2016
Latest Update: May 26, 2016
Summary: Not for Publication DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 1 LAURA D. MILLMAN , Special Master . On November 9, 2012, petitioners filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10-34 (2012) ("Vaccine Act") alleging that their son, T.A., suffered an encephalopathic event as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccine on August 11, 2011. Pet. at 1, 3. The undersigned held a three-day entitlement hearing beginning on March 1, 2016. No decisi
More

Not for Publication

DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

On November 9, 2012, petitioners filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10-34 (2012) ("Vaccine Act") alleging that their son, T.A., suffered an encephalopathic event as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccine on August 11, 2011. Pet. at 1, 3. The undersigned held a three-day entitlement hearing beginning on March 1, 2016. No decision on entitlement has been issued. The parties are currently discussing settling the case.

On April 27, 2016, petitioners filed a second motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioners filed an amended motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs on May 26, 2016. Petitioners' amended motion is unopposed by respondent. Petitioners request $114,812.86 in interim attorneys' fees and costs. In compliance with General Order #9, petitioners' counsel represents that petitioners incurred no costs in pursuit of this claim.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of "reasonable attorneys' fees" and "other costs." 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). Based on the reasonableness of petitioners' request and the lack of opposition from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioners' motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs and awards $114,812.86, representing reimbursement for interim attorneys' fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioners and Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC in the amount of $114,812.86.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNOPPOSED AMENDED APPLICATION FOR INTERIM ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

Petitioners file this Unopposed Amended Application for Interim Attorneys' Fees and Costs and states as follows:

1. On April 27, 2016, Petitioners filed their Second Application for Interim Fees and Costs. [Doc. 73].

2. Based on objections raised by and discussions with Respondent, Petitioners hereby amend the Application for Interim Attorneys' Fees and Costs to request reimbursement in the total amount of $114,812.86. Respondent has no objection to this amount.

3. Pursuant to General Order #9, Petitioners have not incurred any costs in pursuit of the claim.

4. Petitioners now request that a decision awarding interim attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $114,812.86, payable to Petitioners and petitioner's counsel, Andrew D. Downing, Esq., be issued.

FootNotes


1. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims's 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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document's disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.
2. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Source:  Leagle

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