United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Reinsalu v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 20, 2015 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 10-668V

(Not to be published)

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

* V.R., by her mother * EVGENIYA KIM, *

* Filed: February 24, 2015 Petitioner, *

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s v. * Fees & Costs

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES , *

* Respondent. *

* ***************************** Edward David, Roseland, NJ, for Petitioner Ann Martin, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On October 4, 2010, Evgeniya Kim filed a petition on behalf of V.R. seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Athe Vaccine Program@). On November 24, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petition, which I subsequently granted.

On February 24, 2015, counsel for both parties filed a joint stipulation for attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $25,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which respondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance with General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $25,000 payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Edward David, 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, I will post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, 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 posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), 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 whole decision will be available to the public. (Id.) 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.

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