Goldman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-1523
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Petitioner Alla Goldman filed a Vaccine Program petition alleging a left‑shoulder injury related to an October 23, 2015 influenza vaccination (filed Nov. 16, 2016).
- Special Master found entitlement on November 2, 2020 and awarded damages on December 17, 2020.
- Petitioner moved for final attorneys’ fees and costs on March 12, 2021, seeking $84,362.75 (including $11,786.64 payable to prior counsel Muller Brazil LLP and $75 in personal costs).
- Respondent filed a response stating the statutory requirements for an award were met and raised no objections to the specifics.
- The Special Master found the requested hourly rates reasonable, but identified duplicative/excessive billing and reduced fees by $800; all other attorney costs (medical literature, travel, life‑care planner, copying/postage) were approved.
- The Special Master awarded a total of $83,562.75, allocated as $71,701.11 payable to petitioner and Richard Gage, $11,786.64 payable to petitioner and Muller Brazil LLP, and $75 payable to petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees and costs | Goldman is entitled because she was awarded compensation | HHS took no position that fees were improper; respondent agreed statutory requirements met | Fees and costs allowed under §15(e)(1) because petitioner was compensated |
| Hourly rates | Requested rates for counsel (Gage: 2017–2021 escalating to $362/hr; Blume: $350/hr for 2020) mirror prior Program awards | No objection to the rates | Rates were reasonable and awarded as requested |
| Reasonableness of hours / duplication | Counsel billed for time preparing, reviewing orders, and attending conferences/meetings | No specific objection by respondent | Special Master reduced award sua sponte by $800 for duplicative/excessive entries |
| Reimbursement of litigation costs | Documented costs for medical literature, travel, copying, postage, life‑care planner are reasonable | No objection | All requested costs awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard for fee eligibility and good‑faith/reasonable‑basis inquiries)
- Wasson v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (1993) (burden to establish reasonable hours, rates, and expenses)
- Sabella v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (2009) (special master may reduce fees sua sponte)
- Savin v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008) (discussing fee award discretion)
- Perreira v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (costs must be reasonable)
- Beck v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (fee award encompasses all charges—attorney may not collect additional fees beyond award)