VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_05-vv-00744
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_05-vv-00744
Petitioner: T.C.
Filed: 
Decided: 2013-10-24
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Autism
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Richard Curley and Theresa Curley, as parents of T.C., a minor, filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The underlying claim alleged autism. Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell had previously dismissed the case on October 24, 2013. On May 12, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation for attorney fees and costs, along with a statement that the petitioners had incurred no personal litigation costs. Following informal discussions, the petitioners amended their request for fees and costs to an amount to which the respondent did not object. Chief Special Master Vowell found that the petition had been brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, making an award for fees and costs appropriate under 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). The proposed amount was deemed reasonable. Accordingly, on May 13, 2014, Chief Special Master Vowell awarded a total of $28,885.44 in attorney fees and costs. This amount was to be paid by check jointly to the petitioners and their counsel of record, Robert Krakow. The decision was later made public on June 16, 2014, with the minor child's name redacted to initials, as requested by the petitioners. This award represented legal fees and costs, not compensation for vaccine injury. The public decision does not describe the specific vaccine(s), vaccination date(s), clinical history, onset of symptoms, expert testimony, or the specific reasons for the initial dismissal of the underlying claim.

Theory of causation field:
The public decision concerns an award of attorney fees and costs following the dismissal of an underlying claim for autism on behalf of minor T.C., filed by parents Richard and Theresa Curley. The specific vaccine(s), vaccination date(s), clinical presentation, onset, and expert medical theories are not described in the public text. The case was dismissed by Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell on October 24, 2013. A subsequent stipulation for attorney fees and costs was filed on May 12, 2014. On May 13, 2014, Chief Special Master Vowell awarded $28,885.44 in attorney fees and costs, payable jointly to the petitioners and counsel Robert Krakow, finding the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis. The award was made public on June 16, 2014, with the minor's name redacted. The public decision does not detail the mechanism of injury or the specific legal or factual basis for the dismissal of the entitlement claim.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_05-vv-00744-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-06-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/13/2014) regarding 65 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell. (tpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:05-vv-00744-UNJ Document 70 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 05-744V
Filed: May 13, 2014
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RICHARD CURLEY and *
THERESA CURLEY, parents of *
T.C., a minor, *
*
Petitioners, * Autism; Stipulation;
v. * Attorney Fees and Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert Krakow, Esq. Law Office of Robert Krakow, P.C., New York, NY for petitioners.
Lynn Ricciardella, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
1
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued
a decision on October 24, 2013, that dismissed this case. On May 12, 2014, the parties
filed a stipulation for attorney fees and costs and a statement pursuant to General Order
#9 conveying that petitioners incurred no personal litigation costs. The stipulation
indicates that after informal discussions, petitioners amended their fees and costs
request to an amount that respondent does not object.
I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a
reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems
reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the total $28,885.44 3 in
1 When this decision was originally issued, petitioners were informed that the decision would be posted in
accordance with the E-Government of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified
as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). Petitioners were also notified that they could seek
redaction pursuant to § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B); Vaccine Rule 18(b). Petitioners made a timely request for
redaction and this decision is being made public with the name of the minor child redacted to initials.
2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.
(2006).
3 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.

Case 1:05-vv-00744-UNJ Document 70 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 2
the form of a check payable jointly to petitioners and petitioners’ counsel of
record for petitioners’ attorney fees and costs.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-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).
4 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