Gowans v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-440
Fed. Cl.May 8, 2017Background
- Petitioner Ivy E. Gowans received compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for alleged GBS after HPV vaccination and then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Petitioner sought $82,617.91 ( $66,536.50 in fees; $16,081.41 in costs); Respondent did not oppose awardability and raised no specific objections.
- Counsel Christopher E. Hultquist requested $350/hr; paralegals requested $140/hr and $145/hr. Expert Dr. Nizar Souayah billed $500/hr for 28 hours ($14,000).
- Special Master applied the Vaccine Act lodestar framework: reasonable hourly rate × reasonable hours, with potential enhancements or reductions.
- Court evaluated local (Providence) rates, forum (D.C.) rates (McCulloch matrix), and compared them (Davis County exception) to choose the appropriate rate.
- After limited reductions for time spent learning the Vaccine Program and for attorney work that should have been billed at paralegal rates, the Special Master awarded $65,523.75 in fees and $16,081.41 in costs, totaling $81,605.16.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees | Gowans: prevailing petitioner entitled to reasonable fees under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(e) | Resp't: did not contest statutory entitlement | Entitlement granted as petitioner received compensation |
| Reasonable hourly rate for counsel | Hultquist: $350/hr (customary in complex litigation locally) | No specific opposition; court must verify with evidence | Court set $350/hr (forum rate); paralegals set at $135/hr |
| Proper hourly-rate comparison (local vs forum) | Gowans: work performed outside D.C.; local rates applicable if significantly lower | No contest; court applies Avera/Davis County framework | Local (Providence) reasonable rate found $325; forum hypothetical $350; difference (~7.7%) not significant → use $350 |
| Reasonable number/nature of hours billed | Requested hours as billed (attorney and paralegal time) | No detailed objection | Court reduced hours for (1) time spent learning Vaccine Program and (2) attorney tasks that should have been billed at paralegal rates; awarded $65,523.75 in fees |
| Expert fees (Dr. Souayah) | Requested $500/hr × 28 hrs = $14,000; invoices were block-billed | No specific objection | Court found $500/hr reasonable and awarded full $14,000 but directed expert to provide more detailed invoices in future |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (endorsing lodestar approach and forum-vs-local rate analysis)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (applicant must show requested rates align with prevailing community rates)
- Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir.) (exception allowing non-forum rates when bulk of work done elsewhere and rates substantially lower)
- Raney v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 222 F.3d 927 (Fed. Cir.) (burden on fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence of prevailing rates)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir.) (hours must be reasonable; courts may rely on experience to assess reasonableness)
- Rupert v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 52 Fed. Cl. 684 (Fed. Cl.) (courts may look to other evidence when parties do not provide reliable fee-rate proof)
- Caves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 111 Fed. Cl. 774 (Fed. Cl.) (experts should avoid block-billing; fees must be documented reasonably)