Cozart v. Hhs, 00-590

Petitioners Dwayne Cozart and Michele Hamilton filed a Vaccine Program claim (2000) alleging that multiple vaccines given to their infant caused his death; petition denied on entitlement (Oct. 15, 2015) and review denied (Mar. 9, 2016).
Initial counsel was Shoemaker & Associates (until Apr. 2004); Conway, Homer & Chin‑Caplan (CHCC) represented petitioners thereafter and litigated through expert reports and a two‑day entitlement hearing (Sept. 25–26, 2014).
After denial, petitioners sought attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $178,032.61 (July 2016 + supplemental filing); respondent did not contest hourly rates but argued a reasonable total would be $110,000–$130,000.
Special Master found the petition brought in good faith with a reasonable basis, making an award of fees and costs discretionary under the Vaccine Act for unsuccessful petitions.
The Special Master reduced CHCC’s requested attorneys’ fees by 5% ($6,854.38) for unnecessary and duplicative billing (multiple attorneys on the same tasks, excessive intra‑office communications, and redundant document reviews) but awarded CHCC’s costs in full; Shoemaker’s fees and costs awarded in full.
Final award: $171,178.23 in total fees and costs, disbursed as separate checks to petitioners and counsel (including $420 personal costs to petitioners total, and $164,158.84 to CHCC and $6,599.39 to Shoemaker & Associates).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fees/costs are awardable despite no compensation	Petitioners sought full requested fees and costs; asserted good faith and reasonable basis	Respondent did not contest good faith/reasonable basis but contested the reasonableness of total amount	Fees and costs may be awarded; court found good faith and reasonable basis and proceeded to determine reasonableness
Reasonableness of hourly rates and lodestar method	Rates requested were standard and supported	Respondent did not oppose hourly rates	Hourly rates accepted; lodestar method applied
Whether billing was duplicative/excessive given multiple CHCC attorneys	CHCC billed many attorneys and intra‑office time but sought full compensation	Respondent argued overall award should be lower (benchmarks $110k–$130k) based on similar cases	Court found duplicative billing (multiple attorneys on same tasks, excessive internal communications and multiple reviewers) and reduced CHCC fees by 5%
Whether litigation costs (experts, travel, records) were reasonable	Petitioners sought full reimbursement for experts (including hearing testimony), travel, records, and hearing expenses	Respondent argued prior similar awards had lower expert fees but acknowledged differences	Court found costs reasonable given two experts testified live and approved costs in full

Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach and prevailing market rate standard under Vaccine Act)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)
Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (special master may reduce fees for overstaffing and may do so sua sponte)
Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (special master need not perform line‑by‑line analysis when reducing fees)