Arnold v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 13-395

Background

Petitioner Katelin Krause filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging transverse myelitis (TM) following multiple vaccinations between 2011–2012; petition filed June 13, 2013.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report disputed TM diagnosis and noted extensive prior evaluations suggesting stress fractures or other non-TM diagnoses; multiple imaging and tests were non‑confirmatory.
Petitioner produced expert reports (Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld invoking ASIA and neurologist Dr. Dimitrios Karussis); respondent produced opposing expert reports; the case remained contested and potentially heading to an entitlement hearing.
Litigation was protracted (pending ~4 years), with anticipated hearing delays into 2019 and counsel turnover after death of original counsel; petitioner reported limited ongoing symptoms and no current active TM treatment.
Petitioner moved for interim attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $68,948.00 (fees $47,506.30; costs $21,441.70, including expert fees); respondent did not object to an award and deferred to the Special Master’s discretion.
Special Master Roth applied Vaccine Act standards and precedent, found the requested forum rates and requested costs reasonable, and awarded the full interim amount payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to interim fees	Motion seeks interim fees due to protracted, costly litigation and good‑faith claim with reasonable basis	Respondent deferred to Special Master, did not oppose interim award	Interim fees appropriate where litigation is protracted and claim had reasonable basis; award granted
Appropriate hourly rate	Requested forum (D.C.) rates previously found reasonable for counsel	Respondent did not contest rates; deferred to Special Master	Forum rates adopted as consistent with prior decisions and McCulloch framework
Hours reasonably expended	Counsel submitted detailed time; requested total hours supporting lodestar	Respondent raised no specific reductions; reserved to Special Master	Special Master found overall hours reasonable and declined line‑by‑line cuts but cautioned counsel on billing practices
Reasonableness of costs (experts, records)	Requested $21,441.70 including experts (Shoenfeld, Karussis) and record costs	Respondent did not object to costs	Costs found reasonable and awarded in full

Key Cases Cited

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorses lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (forum rates generally apply; limited local‑rate exception)
Hall v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discusses Davis County exception to forum rates)
Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (U.S. 2013) (fee award automatic only where petitioner succeeds on merits; otherwise good faith and reasonable basis suffice)
Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (interim fees appropriate where litigation imposes undue hardship and good‑faith basis exists)
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (2011) (special master may reduce fees without line‑by‑line analysis)
Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (2009) (special masters’ discretion to adjust fee awards sua sponte)
Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (articulates Davis County exception supporting local rates in narrow circumstances)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (standards for awarding attorney’s fees; exclude excessive or unnecessary hours)
Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (2016) (examples of unreasonably duplicative or excessive billing)
Guy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403 (1997) (affirming percentage reductions of submitted hours as reasonable)