Laura Kiepert, Parent of Shaelyn Kiepert, a Minor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 0 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •       In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    No. 03-0149V
    Filed: December 20, 2013
    Not to be Published
    ****************************
    LAURA KIEPERT, Parent of    *
    SHAELYN KIEPERT, a Minor,   *
    *
    Petitioner, *                           Autism; Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
    v.                     *
    *
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH         *
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,         *
    *
    Respondent. *
    *
    ****************************
    DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
    On March 7, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in this
    case. Respondent opposed the motion, arguing that fees and costs should not be
    awarded in untimely filed cases. Because this issue was pending before the U.S.
    Supreme Court, the special masters deferred ruling on fee applications in approximately
    1,000 Omnibus Autism Proceedings (“OAP”) cases. Thus, a ruling on petitioner’s
    motions in this case was deferred.
    Following the Supreme Court’s decision,2 respondent’s counsel and petitioners’
    counsel from the five law firms with the greatest number of pending motions discussed
    a procedure to avoid the lengthy litigation required to assess whether each case was
    filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Respondent will withdraw her objection
    1
    Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,
    I intend to 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule
    18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that
    satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule
    requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review,
    I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such
    material from public access.
    2
    The Supreme Court held that a “petition found to be untimely may qualify for an award of
    attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for its claim.” Sebelius v.
    Cloer, 
    133 S.Ct. 1886
    , 1896-97 (2013).
    to the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs in cases which were filed when the minor
    child was 78 months of age or younger with two caveats.3 Petitioners’ counsel will
    withdraw all motions for fees and costs in cases which were filed when the minor child
    was older than 78 months of age or which fall under either caveat. The procedure
    applies only to cases in the OAP and should not be construed as evidence that the
    parties are abandoning any legal arguments they may make in other cases.
    Petitioner’s counsel in this case has decided to follow this procedure. Because
    the case was filed when the minor child was 78 months of age or younger and does not
    fall under either of respondent’s caveats, respondent has withdrawn her objection to
    payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, respondent does not oppose the
    amount of fees and costs requested.
    Petitioner seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $5,808.75 for work
    performed by Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C. and $200.00 for work performed by
    Williams Kherkher for a total of $6,008.75. In lieu of filing a Vaccine General Order #9
    statement, petitioner’s counsel represents that he will reimburse petitioner any costs
    that petitioner personally incurred that are compensable under § 15 (e)(1).
    Pursuant to §15(e), I hereby award a lump sum of $6,008.754 to be paid in
    the form of a check payable jointly to the petitioner and petitioner’s counsel,
    Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C.
    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.5
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    s/Denise K. Vowell
    Denise K. Vowell
    Chief Special Master
    3
    The first caveat is that respondent will continue to object in any case where the filed medical
    records show that there was a diagnosis outside the statute of limitations. The second caveat
    applies to those cases, in which the claim lacked a reasonable basis for reasons unrelated to
    timely filing. For example, if the minor vaccinee received only a hepatitis B vaccine at birth and
    no additional vaccines were administered, respondent may continue to object because the
    period between vaccination and onset of symptoms at 15 months of age is unreasonable.
    4
    This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award
    encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for
    legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or
    collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See
    generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 
    924 F.2d 1029
     (Fed. Cir.1991).
    5
    Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to
    seek review. See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-0149V

Judges: Special Master Vowell

Filed Date: 12/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021