Cottingham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-1291

Petitioner Susan Cottingham filed a Vaccine Act petition on behalf of her daughter K.C. alleging injuries (headaches, syncope, menstrual dysfunction) following HPV vaccination; petition filed Oct 30, 2015 and later dismissed on entitlement grounds.
Cottingham sought attorneys’ fees and costs after dismissal; the Special Master denied fees for lack of "reasonable basis."
Cottingham moved for reconsideration and then for review; the Court of Federal Claims vacated the Fees Decision and remanded, holding that reasonable-basis should be judged under a totality-of-the-circumstances standard and that a petitioner’s affidavit need not precisely align with medical records.
On remand, the Special Master applied the Court’s totality standard, found Cottingham satisfied reasonable basis based on K.C.’s affidavit alone, and determined petitioner was eligible for fees and costs.
The Special Master applied the lodestar method to compute a fee award, adjusted certain hourly rates (holding some increases unsupported), deducted $500 for minor overbilling/unjustified rate increases, and awarded documented costs in full.
Final award: $32,909.36 in attorneys’ fees and costs, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard for "reasonable basis" for fee eligibility	Use lenient/totality-of-the-circumstances standard; counsel facing statute of limitations needs flexibility	Fee eligibility requires objective evidentiary support; medical records and timing undermine basis	Court-directed totality standard applies on remand; Special Master followed it
Whether Cottingham met "reasonable basis"	K.C.’s affidavit supports onset and causation; affidavit alone suffices under totality	Medical records conflict with affidavit; timing and record inconsistencies show lack of basis	Held: petitioner met reasonable basis based on K.C.’s affidavit without weighing record discrepancies
Appropriate hourly rates for counsel and staff	Requested rates: Downing ($350→$375), associates ($195), paralegals ($100→$135)	Respondent preserved objection to reasonable-basis only; did not contest rates on remand	Reduced some 2017 increases as unsupported; accepted many prior rates; adjusted Downing’s and paralegal rates consistent with precedent
Reasonable number of hours / overall fee computation	Timesheets detailed; requested lodestar plus supplemental fees for fee litigation	Argued lack of reasonable basis (preserved); did not contest lodestar math on remand	Lodestar used; minor deductions for excessive tasks and unsupported rate increases ($500 total); awarded full documented costs

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 formula: hours × reasonable rate)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2011) (fee determinations need not be mathematically precise; "rough justice")
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fees must exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours)
Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1989) (clerical/secretarial tasks not billable)
Bennett v. Dep’t of Navy, 699 F.2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (limits on billing for clerical tasks)
Guy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403 (Fed. Cl. 1997) (guidance on non-compensable clerical tasks)
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (cautions against fee awards based solely on unsupported expert opinions)
Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625 (Ct. Cl. 1998) (court decisions on applicability of standards bind special masters)