Briggs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
19-1822
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 12, 2022Background
- Petitioner Joyce C. Briggs filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging Erythema Multiforme‑like and/or Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption after influenza (Dec. 19, 2016) and influenza + pneumococcal (Oct. 31, 2017) vaccinations.
- Petition filed Nov. 27, 2019; parties filed a stipulation awarding compensation on Oct. 12, 2021, which the special master adopted.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on Dec. 23, 2021, seeking $35,056.18 ($30,144.10 fees; $4,912.08 costs).
- Respondent stated he was satisfied the statutory requirements for an award were met and raised no objections to the amounts.
- The special master applied the lodestar framework, reviewed billing and documentation, and found the requested rates, hours, and costs reasonable and supported.
- The special master awarded the full requested $35,056.18, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees and costs | Briggs sought fees/costs after obtaining compensation by stipulation | Secretary agreed statutory requirements were satisfied | Award authorized under 42 U.S.C. §300aa‑15(e)(1); fees and costs awarded |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates and hours | Counsel requested $30,144.10 with rates consistent with prior Vaccine Program awards | No objection to rates or hours | Special master found rates and hours reasonable and awarded full amount |
| Reasonableness of costs (records, filing fee, expert) | Requested $4,912.08 supported by invoices and expert billing | No objection | Costs found reasonable and supported; 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 (1984) (defines lodestar formula)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours must not be excessive, redundant, or unnecessary)
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special masters may reduce hours using judgment)
- Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008) (requirement for contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (2009) (special master may reduce fees sua sponte)
- Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (2011) (no line‑by‑line analysis required)
- Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (1991) (special masters may rely on experience to assess reasonable hours)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (courts may use "rough justice" and estimates when adjusting fee awards)
- Bell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751 (1989) (fee application must sufficiently detail billed time)