Florence v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-255

Petitioner Janet Florence filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging lymphedema of the left arm after an influenza vaccine (filed Mar. 12, 2015).
The Secretary conceded entitlement; Special Master ruled entitlement in May 2015 and a damages proffer was implemented in Apr. 2016 (award including $258,381.93 plus annuity).
Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs: initially $43,005.00 (fees) + $11,448.78 (costs); after reply requested $43,730 in fees (plus $725 for reply) for a total fee request of $43,730 and costs $11,448.78.
Respondent contested the amount, proposing a reasonable total in the $35,000–$45,000 range and cited comparable Vaccine Program fee awards.
Special Master applied the lodestar method (hours × reasonable rate), reviewed time entries line-by-line, found some rates and many entries reasonable but identified excessive time for routine tasks and numerous vague entries, and ultimately reduced fees by about 10%.
Final award: $50,000 total (fees $38,551.22; costs $11,448.78), paid jointly to petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to fees and costs	Fees and costs are recoverable because petitioner prevailed (concession)	Concedes entitlement but disputes amount	Fees and costs awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑15(e) because petitioner prevailed
Reasonableness of hourly rates	Counsel requested $290/hr (Carney), $400/hr (Cohan), $125/hr (paralegal); rates are appropriate for forum	Did not directly challenge rates; relied on comparable awards to limit total	Rates were found reasonable by the Special Master
Reasonableness of hours billed	Requested hours as documented; included routine file reviews, client communications, work with life‑care planner	Argued overall that a lower total (range $35k–$45k) is reasonable based on comparable cases	Special Master reduced attorneys’ hours ~10% for excessive/vague entries and determined lodestar $38,551.22
Vagueness and delegation (billing descriptions)	Some entries marked privileged; counsel resisted detailed descriptions	Respondent urged reductions; comparators relied upon	Many entries were too vague (about 100/212); attorney-client privilege does not excuse adequate billing detail; reductions applied but privileged/work‑product space acknowledged

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach in Vaccine Act fee awards)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (defines lodestar: hours × reasonable rate)
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (hours must not be excessive, redundant, or unnecessary)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2011) (courts may use rough estimates to achieve substantial justice in fee shifting)
Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (billing entries must adequately identify purpose; privilege rarely excuses necessary detail)
Bennett v. Dep’t of Navy, 699 F.2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (secretarial work is subsumed in attorney rate and not separately billable)
Guy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 403 (1997) (secretarial support included in attorney hourly rate)