Hall v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6698
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Hall appeals a Claims Court ruling confirming a special master's award of Vaccine Act attorneys’ fees to Hall’s attorney, based on the Davis County local-vs-forum rate exception.
- The issue centers on whether fees should be calculated at the local hourly rate (Cheyenne, Wyoming) or the forum rate (Washington, D.C.).
- The special master awarded interim fees using local rates for some periods and then final fees using the local rate; the Forum rate was higher, creating a significant difference.
- The Claims Court upheld the Davis County exception and rejected Hall’s attempt to overturn it after Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff.
- Hall argues for eliminating the Davis County exception or imposing a bright-line standard for “very significant difference.”
- The Federal Circuit reviews the award de novo for legal questions and for the loading of fee determinations under an abuse-of-discretion standard; the court affirms the Claims Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richlin overrules the Davis County exception | Hall asserts Richlin invalidates the Davis County approach. | Gage/Defense argues Davis County remains binding after Masias. | Masias preserves Davis County; Richlin does not overrule it. |
| Whether the determination of a 'very significant difference' is a question of law | Hall seeks a bright-line rule to negate the Davis County exception. | The standard is a fact-intensive, abuse-of-discretion determination. | Abuse-of-discretion standard governs; no bright-line rule adopted. |
| Whether the Davis County exception applies to this Vaccine Act case | Hall contends no very significant difference exists to justify local-rate fees. | Special master found a 59% difference; within existing precedent. | Davis County exception applied; local-rate fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. E.P.A., 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (established Davis County very-significant-difference framework for fee awards)
- Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (U.S. 2008) (requires market-rate attorney fees; does not by itself displace Davis County here)
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (adopts Davis County framework for Vaccine Act fee cases)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (designates judges’ discretion in fee-shifting analyses; standard relevant to abuse-of-discretion review)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (multifaceted, deference-appropriate reasoning for abuse-of-discretion review)
- Saxton ex. rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (discretionary nature of fee determinations within Vaccine Act)