Apodaca v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-106
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 27, 2016Background
- Petitioner Shannon Apodaca filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging that flu and TDaP vaccines administered Oct. 3, 2012 caused/ significantly aggravated brachial neuritis, brachial plexus/shoulder injury, chronic myofascial pain, depression, and anxiety.
- Parties filed a stipulation resolving entitlement and damages; judgment awarding compensation entered Apr. 7, 2016.
- Petitioner sought $19,973.04 in attorneys’ fees and $801.57 in costs (total $20,774.61).
- Respondent argued a reasonable award in similarly-postured SIRVA cases is $11,000–$17,000 and cited comparable awards; respondent noted counsel also investigated a workers’ compensation claim.
- Special Master reviewed contemporaneous billing records, hourly rates, and costs (medical records and filing fee) and considered forum rates from prior Vaccine Program decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs after stipulated award | Fees are recoverable because petitioner obtained compensation via stipulation | Agrees petitioner is entitled but disputes reasonableness of amount | Entitlement: awarded — prevailing statute requires reasonable fees for any petition resulting in compensation |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates requested | Requested rates ($350 for lead counsel in 2014–15, lower for earlier years, paralegal rates) mirror forum ranges and prior adjustments | Suggested overall award range $11,000–$17,000 based on similar SIRVA cases | Rates: requested hourly rates found reasonable and consistent with prior forum rates |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Counsel submitted detailed contemporaneous logs showing hours; much work performed by paralegals | Respondent contended similar cases had lower totals and questioned time for additional investigations | Hours: special master found hours reasonably expended given case complexity (brachial neuritis beyond SIRVA) |
| Recoverable costs and receipts | Claimed costs mainly medical-record fees and filing fee; receipts were partial but sufficient for these items | No substantive dispute beyond respondent’s general range; emphasized need for receipts | Costs: costs deemed reasonable; counsel advised to include receipts for all future costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (lodestar: reasonable hours × reasonable rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary must be excluded)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special masters may rely on experience in reviewing fee applications)
- Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 F. Cl. 313 (2008) (requirement for contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (reasonableness requirement applies to costs)