Bennett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-65
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner Leah Hawkins Bennett filed a Vaccine Program petition as personal representative of her deceased mother, alleging Guillain-Barré Syndrome and death caused by an influenza vaccine; respondent denied causation but the parties stipulated to $360,000 in compensation.
- Petitioner sought attorneys’ fees and costs: $45,090.30 (vaccine counsel fees), $8,032.97 (vaccine counsel costs), and $12,311.11 (fees/expenses billed by estate counsel, Shutts & Bowen).
- Respondent made no detailed objection to the vaccine counsel request but opposed compensating estate-administration attorneys’ fees, citing precedent declining to award probate-related fees under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1).
- The Special Master found forum hourly rates and hours for vaccine counsel reasonable and awarded the requested vaccine-attorney fees and costs (totaling $53,123.27).
- The Special Master held $1,618 of costs (to obtain legal representative authority) compensable because obtaining authority is a statutory prerequisite to filing a death-based petition; denied the $12,311.11 in estate-administration fees as not "incurred in any proceeding on [a Vaccine Act] petition."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vaccine counsel’s requested forum rates and hours are reasonable | Rates/hours are consistent with precedent for petitioner’s counsel and reasonable for work performed | No specific challenge to rates/hours; left to Special Master discretion | Granted in full; vaccine counsel fees awarded as requested |
| Whether ordinary attorneys’ costs (filing, records, shipping) and $1,618 for obtaining representative authority are compensable | Costs are part of litigation; $1,618 was required to establish legal representative authority for a death claim | Costs generally acceptable; but broader probate costs should be excluded | Awarded: general litigation costs and $1,618 for obtaining representative authority compensated |
| Whether Shutts & Bowen’s $12,311.11 in estate-administration fees are compensable under § 15(e)(1) | These fees were incurred “but for” the Vaccine Act claim and thus should be compensable | Estate administration fees are probate matters unrelated to a Vaccine Act proceeding and not compensable | Denied: estate-administration fees are not "incurred in any proceeding on [a Vaccine Act] petition" and are noncompensable |
| Proper forum for recovery of estate-administration fees | Fees should be recoverable through the Vaccine Program because they relate to distributing an award | Such fees should be sought in state probate court under state law; awarding them would require specialized probate review | Denied; special masters lack the appropriate framework and probe into state probate law; state courts should address those fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (endorsing lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (definition of reasonable hourly rate standard)
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (U.S.) (fee award automatic if petitioner succeeds on merits; good faith/reasonable basis standard when not prevailing)
- Mol v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 50 Fed. Cl. 588 (Ct. Cl.) (probate-related fees not compensable under Vaccine Act)
- Lemon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 19 Cl. Ct. 621 (Cl. Ct.) (fees/expenses concerning estate administration disallowed)
- Siegfried v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 19 Cl. Ct. 322 (Cl. Ct.) (Vaccine Act does not cover myriad legal implications of establishing/administering an estate)
- Hall v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (special masters’ discretion and expertise in fee assessments)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)