United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Means v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 29, 2017 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 3, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED JEREMIAH MEANS, *

* No. 12-740V Petitioner, *

* Chief Special Master Dorsey v. *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Amended Application for Attorneys’ AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Costs; Reasonable Costs.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Donald P. Edwards, Law Offices of Donald P. Edwards, Atlanta, GA, for petitioner. Glenn McLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES AND COSTS1 One June 5, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding petitioner and his attorney, Mr. Donald P. Edwards, a total of $75,879.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Decision dated June 5, 2017 (ECF No. 197). Judgment entered on June 7, 2017. On July 26, 2017, petitioner filed a supplemental motion for attorneys’ costs, requesting an additional $1,919.00 for payment to petitioner’s life care planner, Ms. Charlene Butler-Raih. Petitioner’s Supplemental Application (“Pet. Supp. App.”) dated July 26, 2017 (ECF No. 202). Petitioner stated that his initial application for fees and costs inadvertently omitted Ms. Butler-Raih’s updated invoice for the services she provided from May 8, 2016, through September 21, 2016, which total $1,919.00. Id. Petitioner filed this supplemental invoice setting forth the billing entries for Ms. Butler-Raih for these dates. Pet. Supp. App. at 4. Respondent does not object to petitioner’s request for additional costs. Id. at 2.

The undersigned finds this additional cost is reasonable and awards it in full. Accordingly, she awards:

A lump sum in the amount of $1,919.00, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner and his counsel, the Law Offices of Donald P. Edwards.

In absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). As provided by 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). 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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