Guerrero v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
124 Fed. Cl. 153
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Amanda Guerrero filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome following a 2011 influenza vaccine; case filed Oct. 11, 2012 and conditionally settled for $165,000 in April 2013.
- Petitioner sought $61,357.71 in attorneys’ fees and costs; the Special Master initially awarded $48,779.61 after substantial reductions based on a median-fee comparison and perceived excessive/duplicative billing.
- The Court remanded, finding the Special Master’s initial decision lacked adequate specificity for reductions; the Special Master then performed a detailed, line-by-line reanalysis and reduced the request to $50,073.71.
- Petitioner sought judicial review of the second fee decision and additional fees for pursuing review; the Court reviewed the Special Master’s exercise of discretion under the Vaccine Act and lodestar principles.
- The Court affirmed most reductions (excessive, unnecessary, email-related, conversion to paralegal rate, duplicative work except medical-records tasks, retention/disbursement, and clerical work) but reversed the deductions for medical-record review/summarization as arbitrary.
- Final awards: Petitioner entitled to $55,957.71 in fees (adjusting the Special Master’s award upward for medical-record work) and $22,593.35 for fees and costs incurred litigating the motion for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Special Master lawfully reduced attorney fees using a median-fee comparison and insufficient specificity | Guerrero argued the median test and the Special Master’s reductions lacked legal basis and specificity; line items were reasonable | HHS argued the reductions were appropriate because entries were excessive, duplicative, clerical, or improperly billed at attorney rates | Court: affirmed reductions where Special Master reasonably identified excessive/duplicative/clerical/paralegal reclassifications, but reversed reductions for medical-record review because characterization of three discrete tasks as duplicative was arbitrary |
| Whether recharacterizing attorney time as paralegal time or paralegal time as clerical was proper | Guerrero contended recharacterizations were improper and arbitrary | HHS argued recharacterizations were justified by nature of tasks | Court: upheld Special Master’s recharacterizations as reasonable exercises of discretion |
| Whether attorney/paralegal review and summarization of medical records were duplicative | Guerrero argued the three-step process (attorney review, paralegal summary, attorney review of summary) were discrete, necessary tasks | HHS argued counsel’s initial review made the paralegal summary and subsequent review redundant | Court: reversed Special Master; held the three tasks were distinct and reasonably billed; awarded additional $5,884 |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to fees for litigating the motion for review | Guerrero sought fees for time spent on second Motion for Review | HHS argued the motion was frivolous and fees should be denied or reduced | Court: awarded $22,593.35 for the motion; hours and rates found reasonable, no adjustment warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (lodestar method endorsed for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir.) (special master discretion in fee awards)
- Hines ex rel. Sevier v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services, 940 F.2d 1518 (Fed. Cir.) (deference where special master considered relevant evidence and articulated rational basis)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (requirement for reasonably specific explanation of fee determinations)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (2011) (fee-shifting aims for rough justice, not auditing perfection)
- Hall v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 640 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for fee determinations)
- Gruber v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 91 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl.) (fee reductions must be clearly explained and reasonably based)