Davis v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 105 Fed. Cl. 627

Ms. Davis sought vaccine-injury compensation for neuromyelitis optica after an influenza vaccine in December 2006; the special master denied entitlement finding no persuasive causation theory.
Federal Circuit affirmed and later Davis challenged the special master’s fee award decisions under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1).
The special master awarded some interim fees but denied most fees for the Federal Circuit appeal and found the appeal lacked a reasonable basis; he also reduced hours and denied costs on appeal.
Davis argued the underlying entitlement theory was reasonable under Althen prongs and asserted the award should cover all requested fees and costs, including appellate work.
The court remanded for reconsideration of certain fee issues, including an alternate calculation for appellate fees and an award of appellate costs, and set a 90-day remand period.
Key authorities discussed include Moberly, Doe 93, Capizzano, Perdue, Fox, and Wasson in evaluating reasonable basis, method of fee calculation, and related standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal to the Federal Circuit had a reasonable basis	Davis had a reasonable basis to appeal the denial of entitlement under Althen and related standards.	The appeal lacked a reasonable basis, especially due to failure to cite Moberly and reliance on an unsound theory.	The court found a reasonable basis for the appeal existed; the special master abused discretion by finding no reasonable basis.
Whether the hours billed for the motion for review were reasonable	Hours were reasonable given complexity and need to present the record	Hours were excessive and some work redundant or unnecessary	The court affirmed reductions and upheld the overall method of excluding excessive hours, finding no abuse of discretion on this point.
Whether the alternate appellate fee amount required more explanation and remand	An alternate award for appellate fees should be upheld if reasonable	The alternative figure lacked a transparent methodology and required remand for explanation	Remanded for a proper explanation of the methodology used to derive the alternate appellate fee; the court cannot adopt the unexplained figure.
Whether appellate costs should be awarded notwithstanding the Federal Circuit's disposition	Davis is entitled to appellate costs regardless of the Rule 36 disposition	Costs should be constrained by the Federal Circuit’s disposition	Costs for the Federal Circuit appeal were awarded to Davis; the special master improperly limited costs.

Doe 93 v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 98 Fed.Cl. 553 (2011) (first Althen prong requires biological plausibility; overall burden remains preponderance)
Moberly ex rel. Moberly v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (standard of proof for causation in vaccine cases and reliability requirements)
Capizzano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (overlap between Althen prongs may satisfy multiple causation elements)
Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010) (require reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of fee determinations)
Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (2011) (trial courts may use rough justice and estimates in fee calculations)
Wasson ex rel. Wasson v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl.Ct. 482 (1991) (remand required when fee award lacks adequate reasoning or description)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness and allocability of attorney’s fees under fee-shifting statutes)