Bell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
19-1070
| Fed. Cl. | Feb 24, 2022Background
- Petitioner Douglas Bell filed a Vaccine Act petition on July 24, 2019, alleging neuropathy and related arm/shoulder injuries from a November 29, 2017 influenza vaccination.
- Parties filed a stipulation resolving entitlement; the Special Master adopted it and awarded compensation on October 19, 2021.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on November 9, 2021, seeking $25,129.90 ($24,641.61 in fees; $488.29 in costs).
- Respondent stated he was satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of fees and costs were met and did not object to the requested amounts.
- The Special Master applied the lodestar method, found counsel’s requested hourly rates (2018–2021) consistent with prior awards, and reviewed contemporaneous billing records.
- The Special Master concluded the hours and costs were reasonable and awarded the full $25,129.90 as a joint check to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under the Vaccine Act | Fees warranted because petition resulted in award by stipulation | Statutory requirements met; no objection to award | Award permitted; fees and costs recoverable after compensation obtained |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Requested 2018–2021 rates (rising from $396 to $444) are consistent with prior awards | No objection to the proposed rates | Rates found reasonable and accepted |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Contemporaneous time entries document work; hours necessary to prosecute the matter | No objection to hours or entries | Hours reviewed and found reasonable; no reductions made |
| Reasonableness of litigation costs | $488.29 for records, postage, filing fee supported by documentation | No objection 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) (approves lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar: hours times reasonable rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (district court may reduce hours to reasonable amount)
- Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (requirement for contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (special master may reduce fees sua sponte)
- Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (no line-by-line analysis required when reducing fees)
- Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (Ct. Cl. 1991) (special masters may rely on prior experience in reviewing fee requests)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2011) (courts may use estimates and overall sense of the case when determining fee reductions)