Perez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Perez
Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
46%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-034V MIGUEL PEREZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 6, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On January 10, 2023, Miguel Perez filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine he received on October 20, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. On December 19, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 25. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $12,324.07 (representing $11,027.20 in fees plus $1,296.87 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed February 14, 2025, ECF No. 30. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no personal out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 30 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on February 25, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 31. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 30 at 12-24. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $12,324.07 (representing $11,027.20 in fees plus $1,296.87 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Perez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Date Filed: May 6, 2025
Jurisdiction: Federal
In this case, Miguel Perez filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Act) alleging a shoulder injury related to the administration of an influenza vaccine received on October 20, 2021. The case was adjudicated by the Office of Special Masters, with Chief Special Master Corcoran presiding.
Key Legal Issues
- Vaccine Injury Compensation: The primary issue was whether Perez was entitled to compensation for his alleged vaccine-related injury.
- Attorney's Fees and Costs: The case also addressed the petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs incurred during the litigation process.
Court's Decision
On December 19, 2024, the court awarded compensation to Perez based on a stipulation between the parties. Following this, Perez filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs on February 14, 2025, seeking a total of $12,324.07, which included $11,027.20 in fees and $1,296.87 in costs. The court found the request reasonable and granted it in full.
Legal Reasoning
The court noted that the Vaccine Act allows for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to successful claimants under Section 15(e). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not contest the statutory requirements for the award but deferred the amount to the discretion of the court. The court reviewed the submitted billing records and found no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates, affirming the reasonableness of the claimed costs.
Key Holdings
- The court awarded $12,324.07 in attorney's fees and costs to the petitioner.
- The decision emphasized the importance of the Vaccine Act in providing compensation for vaccine-related injuries.
- The court's ruling highlighted that the respondent did not object to the fees or costs, facilitating a smoother resolution.
Precedents and Citations
- National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755
- Vaccine Rule 18(b) and Vaccine Rule 11(a) were referenced in the decision regarding the public accessibility of the ruling and the expedited entry of judgment.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the Vaccine Act's role in protecting individuals who suffer injuries from vaccines by providing a structured process for compensation. Legal practitioners should note the following:
- Documentation is Key: Claimants must provide thorough documentation to support their claims for fees and costs.
- Respondent's Position: The lack of objection from the respondent can streamline the process for claimants seeking compensation.
- Public Accessibility: Decisions made under the Vaccine Act are publicly accessible, which can influence future claims and legal strategies.
Overall, the Perez v. Secretary of Health case serves as a significant reference for both claimants and legal professionals navigating the complexities of vaccine injury claims and the associated legal processes.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools