Garrison v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
128 Fed. Cl. 99
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Garrison filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging narcolepsy after influenza vaccination and proceeded to damages phase.
- Special Master Gowen awarded interim attorneys’ fees and costs, applying a forum rate with a local-rate analysis and risk-premium adjustment.
- Government challenged the use of forum rate versus local rate under the Davis County exception and Avera framework.
- Special Master found the local rate to be $327/hour and the forum rate to be $387.50/hour, concluding the difference was not 'very significant.'
- Court reviews under RCFC Vaccine Rules 23–24 for abuse of discretion, upholding the Special Master’s determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis County exception applies | Garrison seeks Davis County relief for a large rate disparity. | Government argues disparity is too small for an exception. | Exception not triggered; forum rate applies. |
| Appropriate local rate for Mr. Webb | Local rate supported by Idaho district-court decisions and affidavit by Webb ($285). | Special Master could rely on other Idaho decisions and adjust for risk; consider higher local rate. | Special Master did not abuse discretion; set local rate at $327/hour after multi-factor analysis. |
| Appropriate forum rate and its relation to local rate | Forum rate in DC should govern under forum rule. | Forum rate may be higher, but difference must be analyzed for very significant distinction. | Forum rate used; difference not very significant, thus forum rate controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorses lodestar method and forum rate default in Vaccine Act cases with Davis County caveat)
- Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (defines 'very significant' difference for Davis County exception)
- Masias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 634 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (illustrates substantial forum-local rate disparities considerations)
- Hall v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 640 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reaffirms deference to special masters on fee determinations)
- Hines ex rel. Sevier v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 940 F.2d 1518 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (describes abuse-of-discretion standard in fee awards)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (acknowledges special-master discretion and deference in fee matters)
- Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., 714 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discusses abuse of discretion and reasoned decision-making)
- Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co., 279 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (articulates standard for reviewing fee decisions)