United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided June 18, 2015 · George L. Hastings
Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 07-046V (Not to be published)

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

* DIANE DAVIS and * ANDREW DAVIS, * as parents of J.D., a minor, *

* Petitioners, *

* Filed: May 27, 2015 v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’ SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs HUMAN SERVICES *

* Respondent. *

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

DECISION (ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,1 I issued a Decision on April 20, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in this matter.2 The parties’ stipulation requests a total payment of $5,407.37, representing attorneys’ fees and costs of $5,157.37, and $250.00 of costs expended by Petitioners.

I find that this Petition was filed and pursued in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Thus, an award for fees and costs is appropriate at this time, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amounts seem reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1):

• a lump sum of $5,157.37, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioners and petitioners’ counsel, Patricia Finn, on account of services performed by counsel’s law firm.

• a lump sum of $250.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioners, which represents petitioners’ own litigation expenses in this case. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr. Special Master

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 2 I note that the parties’ Stipulation includes a discussion of respondent’s statutory objection to “interim fees” in general. (see footnote 1.) Since this Decision does not involve “interim fees,” there is no need to discuss that issue. 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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