Legal Opinion
McKellar v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided November 4, 2011No. 09-841VPublishedCited by 166 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This ease is before the court on a motion by respondent for review of the special master’s decision to award interim attorneys’ fees. The underlying entitlement claim is still pending. The motion is fully briefed, and we heard oral argument on October 4, 2011. For the reasons explained below, we grant respondent’s motion for review.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2009, Katherine McKellar, acting pro se, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-l to -34 (2006) (the “Act”). Petitioner claims…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Nathaniel Saxton, by and Through His Legal Representatives, Steven and Candace Saxton v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Avera v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Hanrahan v. HamptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Rose Capizzano v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by166 opinions
- Chuisano v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Woods v. Secretary of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Rehn v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Allicock ex rel. M.A. v. Secretary of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Carter v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
161 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.