Court Opinion

ID: 9474630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:03:42.240235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:13.485434
License: Public Domain

HILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur. The consent decree placed the burden of these fees upon appellants. Having entered into, and joined in petitioning for the issuance of, the decree, appellants cannot escape its terms by arguing that it acted unwisely in the first instance.
Part IIB concerns me greatly. PMC counsel are offered a tempting “fountain of fees” derived from counseling its client, PMC, that a claimant’s case is meritorious and, then, earning fees for representing the claimant before the special master and the court. Appellants were apparently most anxious to settle when that consent was presented to the court.
I see no reason to analyze the “prevailing party” issue towards the end of Part IIA; the consent decree is sufficient.