Coker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
12-545
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Petitioner Alma Joan Coker filed a Vaccine Act petition on August 28, 2012, alleging her husband developed Guillain-Barré syndrome and died after an influenza vaccination on October 20, 2009.
- The parties stipulated to damages and, on July 27, 2015, the special master awarded petitioner $115,000.00.
- On March 10–18, 2016, petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $59,721.29 (fees $51,232.50; costs $8,488.79).
- Respondent did not contest entitlement but estimated reasonable fees and costs between $35,000 and $40,000 based on experience in similar Vaccine Act cases.
- The special master reviewed billing records, found most requested fees and costs reasonable, but determined counsel’s 32.10 hours billed for reviewing the 16‑page expert report (plus 162 pages of cited articles) was excessive and reduced that line by 75%, resulting in a $6,620.63 reduction.
- The special master awarded $53,100.66 in attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid jointly to petitioner and counsel; judgment to be entered absent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after a damages award | Entitlement follows the statutory rule when compensation is awarded; the requested hourly rates, hours, and costs are reasonable | Respondent conceded entitlement but argued the reasonable total is roughly $35,000–$40,000 based on experience | Entitlement awarded; special master applies discretion to determine reasonableness and grants fees and costs largely as requested |
| Whether the hours billed for counsel’s review of the expert report were reasonable | Counsel defended the billed time as necessary to review expert materials | Respondent did not object to specific entries but generally disputed reasonableness via a lump estimate | Special master found 32.10 hours to review a 16‑page report (plus 162 pages of articles) excessive; reduced that entry by 75%, producing a $6,620.63 overall reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (statutory rule that a petitioner who obtains compensation is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (special masters have broad discretion in assessing fee applications)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (1993) (special masters may rely on prior program experience when reviewing fee petitions)