United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Barrantes-Vargas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided June 20, 2017 · Laura D Millman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-1515V Filed: May 22, 2017 Not for Publication ************************************* CARLOS BARRANTES-VARGAS, * * Petitioner, * * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision; v. * respondent does not object * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* Kenneth W. Thayer, III, West Trenton, NJ, for petitioner.

Lisa A. Watts, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1 On November 15, 2016, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act”). On February 16, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order Concluding Proceedings pursuant to Rule 21(a).

On May 19, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner requests $4,762.50 in attorneys’ fees and $3,147.50 in costs for a total request of $7,910.00. On May 22, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion explaining he does not object to the amount sought by petitioner. Respondent notes that his lack of objection “should not be construed as admission, concession, or waiver as to the hourly rates requested, the number of hours billed, or the other litigation related costs.” Resp. at 1.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the lack of opposition from respondent, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total amount of $7,910.00, as a lump sum in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Gaylord Popp, LLC.

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.

Dated: May 22, 2017 s/ Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal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.

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