VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00790
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00790
Petitioner: ALEXANDER J. LEBRUN
Filed: 2014-03-06
Decided: 2014-02-04
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Autism
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 10350

AI-assisted case summary:
Michael A. Lebrun and Suzanne M. Lebrun, parents and guardians of Alexander J. Lebrun, a minor, filed a petition alleging that a vaccine caused autism. This decision addresses their motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Supreme Court's ruling in Sebelius v. Cloer addressed the issue of attorneys' fees in untimely filed cases. Following this, respondent and petitioners' counsel agreed on a procedure for resolving fee applications in Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP) cases. This case qualified for the agreement because it was filed when the minor child was 78 months of age or younger and did not fall under respondent's caveats. Respondent withdrew her objection to attorneys' fees and costs, but contested the amount. The parties stipulated to a total award of $10,350.00, comprising $10,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs payable jointly to petitioners and their counsel, and $350.00 in petitioners' costs payable solely to them. Judgment was to be entered in accordance with this award.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00790-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-03-06
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION. Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell. (ss) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:08-vv-00790-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No.08-0790V
Filed: February 4, 2014
Not to be Published
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL A. LEBRUN and *
SUZANNE M. LEBRUN, *
Parents and Guardians of *
ALEXANDER J. LEBRUN, a Minor, *
* Autism; Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Petitioners, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On December 10, 2012, petitioners filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in
this case. Respondent requested that a ruling on petitioners’ motion be deferred
because the issue of whether attorneys’ fees and costs could be awarded in untimely
filed cases was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Response, filed Dec. 18,
2012, at 2. The special master formerly assigned to this case granted respondent’s
motion. Order, issued Jan. 3, 2013, at 2. Additionally, the special masters deferred
ruling on fee applications in approximately 1,000 other Omnibus Autism Proceedings
(“OAP”) cases.
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 redact 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 redact such
material from public access.
1

Case 1:08-vv-00790-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 3
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
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.
This case is the only such case for petitioners’ counsel. 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. However, respondent objected to the amount of fees and
costs requested by petitioners’ counsel.
On February 4, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. After informal discussions, the parties have agreed on
$10,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $350.00 in petitioners’ costs for a total of
$10,350.00. In lieu of filing a Vaccine General Order #9 statement, petitioners’ counsel
represents that petitioners personally incurred $350.00 in costs that are compensable
under § 15 (e)(1).
Pursuant to §15(e), I hereby award a total amount of $10,350.00 to be paid
as follows:
 a lump sum of $10,000.00, in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioners and petitioners’ counsel, Peter H. Meyers, Esq.; and
 a lump sum of $350.00, in the form of a check payable solely to
petitioners.
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).
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.
2

Case 1:08-vv-00790-UNJ Document 46 Filed 03/06/14 Page 3 of 3
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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
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).
3