Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
13-594
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Petitioner Hazel Brown filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging shoulder injury and regional pain syndrome after a 2010 influenza vaccination; respondent proffered compensation and entitlement was awarded.
- Petitioner sought attorneys’ fees of $42,869.50 and costs of $14,237.86 (total $57,107.36).
- Respondent did not object to the amounts specifically but asked the special master to determine a reasonable award.
- Special Master applied the lodestar approach using forum (D.C.) rates and McCulloch-derived ranges for counsel Danielle Strait, adjusting the hourly rates for 2013–2017.
- The special master found some billed hours excessive or clerical and reduced fees: first recalculated fees using awarded hourly rates ($42,480.70), then applied a 10% reduction for excessive/administrative entries, resulting in $38,232.63 in attorneys’ fees.
- All requested costs ($14,237.86) were found reasonable; total award $52,470.49, to be paid jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees despite settled proffer | Brown invoked automatic fee award for success on merits (proffered compensation) | Respondent accepted fee award but deferred to Special Master on reasonableness | Fees recoverable; special master to determine reasonable amount |
| Appropriate hourly rates | Counsel sought above-mid McCulloch forum rates for 2013–2017 | Respondent raised no specific objections to rates; asked Special Master to exercise discretion | Forum rates applied; Strait awarded $295 (2013–15), $300 (2016), $307 (2017) |
| Reasonableness of billed hours | Brown submitted detailed time entries totaling requested fee amount | Respondent raised no itemized objections but preserved Special Master discretion | Certain entries were excessive/clerical; fees recalculated at awarded rates then reduced 10% for overbilling; resulting fee award $38,232.63 |
| Recoverability of costs | Brown sought $14,237.86 (life care planner, records, travel, shipping, research) | Respondent did not specifically dispute costs | All requested 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) (endorses lodestar approach under Vaccine Act)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar method and market rate standard)
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (U.S. 2013) (fee award automatic if petitioner succeeds on merits)
- Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (forum rates generally apply; limited Davis County exception)
- Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (basis for local-rate exception analysis)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (hours must be reasonable; special master discretion to reduce hours)