Barreiro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
18-1238
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Petitioner Laurie Barreiro filed a Vaccine Act petition on Aug. 17, 2018, alleging chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) from an influenza vaccination on Sept. 25, 2017.
- Parties filed a stipulation resolving entitlement and damages, which the Special Master adopted on Feb. 2, 2020.
- Petitioner moved for final attorneys’ fees and costs on Mar. 23, 2021, requesting $37,384.12 ($36,616.50 attorneys’ fees; $767.62 costs).
- Respondent stated that the statutory requirements for an award of fees and costs were met and did not oppose the requested award.
- The Special Master reviewed billing entries, hourly rates, and supporting documentation and found the requested rates, hours, and costs reasonable.
- The Special Master awarded the full requested amount, to be paid jointly to Petitioner and counsel, and directed entry of judgment absent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act | Barreiro is entitled because she obtained compensation via stipulation | Statutory requirements for an award are met; Respondent does not oppose | Award appropriate where petitioner is awarded compensation by stipulation; fees recoverable |
| Reasonableness of requested hourly rates for counsel | Requested rates ($350–$430 depending on year) are consistent with prior awards for Ms. Meyers | No objection; Respondent satisfied requirements | Requested rates accepted as reasonable |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Counsel submitted contemporaneous, detailed time records; hours not excessive | No objection | Hours billed found reasonable; no reductions made |
| Reasonableness of requested litigation costs | Costs ($767.62) supported by receipts (copies, postage, filing fee, transcript) | No objection | Costs documented and reasonable; awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explains fee award eligibility and standard for reasonable fees)
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special master has broad discretion to determine fee reasonableness)
- Hines v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750 (1991) (deference to special master's fee determinations)
- Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008) (requirement for contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (prevailing market rate guides reasonable hourly rate)
- Perreira v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (costs must be reasonable and supported)
- Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379 (1989) (billing for administrative/clerical tasks is not compensable)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours awarded should exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary time)