Echevarria v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-100
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Petitioner Maria Echevarria filed a Vaccine Act petition (on behalf of her deceased child D.E.) alleging injury and death caused by a pneumococcal vaccine; case filed Feb. 2, 2015.
- Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report concluding petitioner had not shown sufficient proof of injury; petitioner never filed an expert report despite multiple extensions and then moved to dismiss.
- The special master dismissed the petition on Sept. 16, 2016.
- Petitioner then filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs requesting $37,331.85 (including $100 in petitioner out‑of‑pocket expenses); respondent did not oppose the total amount.
- The special master reviewed hourly rates against forum/McCulloch ranges, reduced several requested rates, corrected a duplicated $400 filing fee, and awarded reduced fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under §15(e) after dismissal | Petitioner sought full fees and costs ($37,331.85) asserting good faith and reasonable basis for bringing the claim | Respondent did not oppose the requested total | Fee award considered; special master may award fees where claim brought in good faith and with reasonable basis; awarded reduced fees and costs totaling $30,980.85 plus $100 to petitioner personally |
| Appropriate hourly rates for counsel and staff | Counsel requested $400/hr for Patricia Finn, $200/hr for paralegal Jessica Lucas, $145/hr for law clerk Racheal Williams and paralegal Seelena Singh | Respondent raised no opposition but court must review reasonableness under McCulloch and forum rates | Rates reduced to: Finn $310 (2014), $316 (2015), $328 (2016); Lucas $100 (2014), $125 (2015–2016); Williams $145 (2015); Singh $100 (2016) |
| Reduction methodology / reliance on precedent | Petitioner relied on her locality and counsel experience for higher rates | Court applied McCulloch framework, prior decisions, and forum rates to set reasonable ranges and adjust for inflation | Special master used McCulloch ranges, prior awards for same counsel, and 3.7% inflation adjustment for 2016 rate |
| Costs billed (duplicative items) | Petitioner billed costs totaling $6,631.85 (including filing fees) | Court review identified the filing fee was billed twice ($800 total) | Court deducted $400 (one duplicated filing fee) and awarded $6,231.85 in costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabella v. Sec’y of HHS, 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (Federal Claims 2009) (special master may reduce fees sua sponte)
- Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1989) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of HHS, 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Federal Claims 2011) (special master not required to conduct a line‑by‑line fee analysis)
- Riggins v. Sec’y of HHS, [citation="406 F. App'x 479"] (Fed. Cir. 2011) (special masters may rely on prior experience reviewing fee applications)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (court may rely on prior experience in assessing fee requests)