Durwin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
13-214
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition on March 26, 2013, alleging a left-arm injury caused by a December 22, 2011 Tdap vaccination.
- On February 1, 2016, the Special Master awarded compensation based on the parties’ stipulation.
- On July 29, 2016, petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $48,026.06 ($38,825.30 fees; $9,200.76 costs).
- Respondent conceded the statutory entitlement to fees but argued a reasonable fee range of $14,000–$21,000 based on surveys of similar Vaccine Act cases.
- Petitioner objected to respondent’s range and requested full payment of the submitted amount.
- The Special Master reviewed counsel’s billing records and exercised discretion to award the full requested $48,026.06, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Durwin’s Argument | Secretary’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after obtaining compensation | Entitled to reasonable fees and costs; requested $48,026.06 | Concedes entitlement but contends a reasonable amount is $14,000–$21,000 | Entitlement established; fees and costs awarded in full ($48,026.06) |
| Whether respondent’s comparative-range method should control the fee award | Full requested amount is reasonable based on billing records | Reasonableness should be guided by respondent’s survey and experience with similar cases | Court rejects reliance on respondent’s range; evaluates submitted billing records instead |
| Whether the Special Master may rely on prior experience in adjudicating fees | Implicitly accepts Special Master’s experience as proper context | Implies survey and experience support lower award | Special Master properly exercises wide discretion and may use prior experience alongside record review |
| Form and payee of the award | Payable to petitioner and counsel jointly | No objection to joint payment | Award directed as a joint check to petitioner and Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (entitlement to fees after successful Vaccine Act petition)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (special master has broad discretion in awarding fees)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (1993) (special masters may rely on prior experience when reviewing fee applications)