Doxzon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
19-1236
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Petitioner Fernanda Doxzon filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome, significant aggravation of Neuromyelitis Optica, and other neurological injuries from an influenza vaccine given on October 28, 2016.
- Petitioner moved to voluntarily dismiss; the special master dismissed the petition on July 12, 2021 for insufficient proof.
- On August 20, 2021 petitioner sought attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $18,948.03 ($17,382.80 fees; $1,565.23 costs).
- Respondent deferred to the court on whether statutory requirements for an award were met and did not oppose the specifics.
- The special master applied the lodestar method, reviewed requested hourly rates and contemporaneous billing, and examined claimed costs.
- The special master reduced fees by $495.50 for clerical/paralegal billing, awarded $16,887.30 in fees and full costs of $1,565.23, for a total award of $18,452.53 payable to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees after dismissal | Sought fees and costs under the Vaccine Act | Deferred to court on entitlement/reasonableness | Fees may be awarded if reasonable; court evaluated and awarded fees and costs |
| Hourly rates | Requested rates by year ($225–$300) consistent with prior awards | Did not contest specific rates | Requested rates found reasonable and approved |
| Hours billed / billing entries | Submitted contemporaneous billing for attorney and paralegal time | Did not contest but respondent deferred | Overall hours reasonable; reduced $495.50 for clerical/paralegal filing tasks; final fees $16,887.30 |
| Attorneys' costs | Requested $1,565.23 for records, postage, filing fee | Deferred to court | All requested costs found reasonable and awarded in full ($1,565.23) |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach under the Vaccine Act)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (prevailing market rate standard for hourly fees)
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (gives special masters wide discretion in fee determinations)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (fees not recoverable for hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary)
- Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (requires contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Perreira v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (cost reimbursements must be reasonable)
- Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (special masters need not perform line-by-line reductions)
- Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (special masters may reduce fee awards sua sponte)
- Wasson v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (Cl. Ct. 1991) (special masters may rely on prior experience to assess reasonable hours)