Tapia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Tapia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tapia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
********************** FERNANDO TAPIA, * No. 22-1358V * Petitioner, * * Special Master Christian J. Moran v. * * Filed: May 16, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * ********************** Timothy William O'Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for petitioner; Traci Patton, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e), petitioner has requested a total of $28,309.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The undersigned tentatively found that petitioner requested a reasonable amount and was entitled to the full amount requested. The undersigned allowed respondent an opportunity to comment. Respondent did not interpose any objections within the time permitted.
Petitioner’s attorney, attorney staff, and expert have requested hourly rates that are consistent with the rates previously awarded. The number of hours is reasonable. Thus, the amount requested is reasonable.
1 The E-Government, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. Petitioner is awarded $28,309.08. This amount shall be made payable as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Tim O’Hara.
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.
s/Christian J. Moran Christian J. Moran Special Master
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tapia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tapia-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2024.