Crespo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-1100

Background

Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging her minor daughter N.S. developed transverse myelitis after DTaP and PC vaccinations and sought damages; the parties stipulated to compensation and a damages decision was entered and amended to require a state-court guardianship before payment.
After damages were awarded, petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $77,158.47, composed of fees for Maglio Christopher & Toale (firm), state guardianship counsel Rose Romero (establishment and future maintenance), and guardian ad litem Debra Slater; petitioner also filed a supplemental fees request for work on a reply.
Respondent objected to reimbursement for (1) fees and costs related to the state-court guardianship establishment in Florida and (2) any advance or future attorneys’ fees to maintain the guardianship.
The special master reviewed forum rates and McCulloch guidance, reduced certain forum rates (including for Ms. Amber Wilson), cut travel at half-rate, disallowed clerical entries, reduced a law clerk rate slightly, and applied a 10% reduction for block billing and uncompensable research.
The special master awarded reduced fees and costs for the firm (Maglio Christopher & Toale) and awarded fees for Romero’s work establishing the guardianship, but denied Romero’s requested prepayment for future guardianship maintenance and denied fees for the guardian ad litem as unrelated to Vaccine Program proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are state-court guardianship establishment fees compensable under the Vaccine Act when required by a stipulation?	Guardianship establishment is routinely awarded when required to receive the award; such costs are "proceedings on the petition."	State ancillary actions are separate and not compensable under §300aa-15(e)(1).	Fees to establish guardianship were compensable here because the stipulation and amended damages decision made guardianship a condition of payment.
Are future (prepaid) attorneys' fees to maintain a guardianship compensable?	Such fees are "but-for" expenses tied to the vaccine award and not speculative; should be paid.	§300aa-15(e)(1) covers fees "incurred," not speculative future expenses; prepayment is improper.	Future/prepaid maintenance fees are not compensable: they were not yet incurred and are speculative, so denied.
Are fees for a guardian ad litem in the state proceeding compensable?	(Petitioner sought reimbursement as part of guardianship process.)	These services were unrelated to the Vaccine Program and incurred without court/respondent involvement.	Fees for guardian ad litem were not compensable because they were not incurred "on a petition" for Vaccine Program proceedings.
Were the firm’s requested rates and hours reasonable (including travel, clerical entries, block billing)?	Requested forum rates, travel billed at full rate, and all billed hours were reasonable and supported.	Respondent objected to certain rates/hours; special master evaluates reasonableness.	The special master reduced attorney hourly rates (for experience), awarded travel at half-rate, disallowed clerical entries, reduced law clerk rate, and applied a 10% reduction for block billing/uncompensable research; overall firm award reduced accordingly.

Key Cases Cited

Perreira v. Sec'y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (special master has wide discretion in fee determinations)
Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec'y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (use of special masters' experience in reviewing fee applications)
Avera v. Sec'y of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reasonable hourly rate standard)
Rodriguez v. Sec'y of HHS, 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (forum rates apply)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours not properly billed to a client are not compensable)
Gruber ex rel. Gruber v. Sec'y of HHS, 91 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (analysis of travel/time and reasonableness; assessing guardianship-related costs)
Mol v. Sec'y of HHS, 50 Fed. Cl. 588 (Fed. Cl. 2001) (limiting compensability of ancillary probate/guardianship matters)
Black v. Sec'y of HHS, 33 Fed. Cl. 546 (Fed. Cl. 1995) (expense is "incurred" when legally liable; rejecting speculative prepayments)
Wasson v. Sec'y of HHS, 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (Cl. Ct. 1991) (line-by-line analysis not required in fee reductions)