United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

Osorio v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 14, 2014 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-082V

(Not to be published)

*****************************

* LYNNETTE OSORIO, parent of A.A., * a minor, * Filed: September 17, 2014

Petitioner, *

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’ v. * Fees & Costs

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* ***************************** Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Ann D. Martin, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On January 31, 2013, Lynnette Osorio, as parent of her minor child, A.A., filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On March 13, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation.

On September 16, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another stipulation, this time regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $26,987.78, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s current counsel. This represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. This lump sum includes final attorneys’ fees and costs for Petitioner’s current counsel, as well as for Petitioner’s former counsel, Dennis J. Ellis, and Petitioner’s other former counsel, Abigail Williams & Associates, P.C. Petitioner and Petitioner’s current counsel are responsible for making the appropriate distributions to each former counsel.

I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award of $26,987.78 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s current counsel, Ronald C. Homer, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the public. Id. 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.