Hampton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
13-776
| Fed. Cl. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Petitioner Huey Hampton filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging CIDP caused by a 2010 influenza vaccination; compensation was awarded by stipulation in August 2016.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on January 8, 2017, seeking $40,539.01 in fees and $11,455.99 in costs (total $51,995.00).
- Respondent deferred to the special master's discretion, recommending the special master determine a reasonable award.
- The special master applied the lodestar approach (hours × reasonable rates) and reviewed contemporaneous billing records and itemized costs (medical records, filing fee, life‑care plan, economic report).
- The requested hourly rates matched previously approved forum rates and prior awards to petitioner’s counsel and staff; much work was performed by paralegals at paralegal rates.
- The special master found the requested rates, hours, and costs reasonable and awarded the full requested sum as a lump sum payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after a stipulated award | Hampton sought fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑15(e) following the stipulated compensation award | Respondent recommended the special master exercise discretion to determine a reasonable award (no objection to entitlement) | Fees and costs are recoverable; petitioner is entitled to a reasonable award under the Vaccine Act |
| Appropriate method to calculate fee award | Apply lodestar (hours × reasonable hourly rates) and adjust if needed | Agreed that lodestar is appropriate and decision left to special master’s discretion | Lodestar approach applied; special master reviewed rates and hours and retained the initial lodestar without adjustment |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates requested | Requested rates are consistent with prior forum rates and recent awards to counsel and associates | Respondent did not contest specific rates, deferred to special master’s discretion | Requested hourly rates deemed reasonable based on precedent and prior awards |
| Reasonableness of hours and costs billed | Billing records showed contemporaneous, specific entries; substantial paralegal work at paralegal rates; costs itemized | Respondent did not contest hours or costs, asked special master to determine reasonableness | Hours billed and requested costs (medical records, filing fee, life‑care plan, economic report) found reasonable; full award granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar formulation: reasonable hours × reasonable rates)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fee award determinations lie within special master's discretion)
- Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (requirement for contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Perreira v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (reasonableness requirement applies to costs)