Legal Opinion
Garrison v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 17, 2016No. 14-762VPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Keywords: Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(l); Motion for Review; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B); Forum Rate Rule; Davis County Exception.
OPINION AND ORDER
KAPLAN, Judge.
This case is currently before the Court on the government’s motion to review the Special Master’s award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), Appendix B, Vaccine Rules 23 and 24. ECF No. 42. For the reasons set forth below, the government’s motion for review is DENIED and the Special Master’s decision is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
1.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- 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
- Melissa Hines, on Behalf of Her Minor Daughter, Amber Sevier v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Almanza v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
- Almanza v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
- Anthony v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Bean-Sasser v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Bretag v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.