Baldwin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
09-694
Fed. Cl.Sep 25, 2017Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition on Oct. 14, 2009 alleging vaccines caused her daughter’s seizures and developmental delays; a damages stipulation was entered and awarded on Oct. 20, 2016.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs (initially $139,323.10; later adjusted to $133,071.35) after entry of judgment; respondent did not oppose entitlement and left reasonableness to the special master.
- The case record shows substantial delay after petitioner accepted respondent’s settlement offer on Nov. 6, 2015; final stipulation was not filed until July 11, 2016 due to petitioner’s counsel’s slow efforts in obtaining updated Medicaid lien information and multiple missed status conferences.
- The special master noted counsel’s failures to appear and general dilatoriness, and previously indicated in a June 9, 2016 order a potential 50% cut in hourly rates from that date onward as sanction for lack of focus on the case.
- Instead of applying the 50% post-June 9 rate cut, the special master exercised her discretion to reduce the total attorneys’ fee award by 20% to compensate for counsel’s dilatory conduct and the resulting delay to the client.
- The court awarded a joint check for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $117,741.60, representing the reduced award, and directed entry of judgment absent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act despite not prevailing in a contested trial | Petitioner sought fees and costs after a stipulated award; argued fees are recoverable where claim is brought in good faith and with reasonable basis | Respondent agreed statutory requirements were met and deferred to the special master on amount | Fees and costs are awardable; respondent’s concession accepted and special master addressed reasonableness |
| Appropriate method and amount for calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees (lodestar) | Petitioner submitted billing records and requested $133,071.35 after correcting for the earlier proposed rate-cut math | Respondent recommended the special master exercise discretion to determine a reasonable award | Special master applied lodestar review and found the requested fees generally reasonable but subject to reduction for counsel’s conduct |
| Whether to sanction or reduce fees due to counsel’s dilatoriness (missed conferences, delay in obtaining Medicaid lien) | Petitioner proposed a modest adjustment (calculation reducing $6,251.75 per earlier Order) | Respondent did not press a specific sanction but left amount to special master’s discretion | Special master declined 50% post-June-9 hourly rate cut; instead reduced the total fee award by 20% for counsel’s dilatory conduct |
| Form and payee of the fee award | Petitioner requested award to counsel/petitioner | Respondent did not object to payee arrangement | Special master ordered payment by joint check to petitioner and counsel for $117,741.60 |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards and allows adjustments)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar formula: reasonable hours times reasonable rates)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (recognizes special masters’ use of prior experience in fee review)
- Sabella v. Sec’y of HHS, 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (special masters may reduce fees sua sponte without further notice)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (discusses special masters’ discretion in fee determinations)