Hardeen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-726
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- Petitioners Jasmatie and Ryon Hardeen filed a Vaccine Program petition on behalf of their daughter R.H., alleging DTaP, IPV, Hib, PCV7, and rotavirus vaccines (Jan 16, 2014) caused epilepsy and developmental delays; the petition was dismissed for insufficient proof on March 14, 2017.
- Petitioners moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on June 21, 2017, seeking $30,424.00 in fees and $1,777.12 in costs (total $32,201.12).
- Respondent did not oppose an award and asked the Special Master to exercise discretion to determine a reasonable fee amount.
- The Special Master applied the lodestar approach (hours × reasonable rates) and the McCulloch-derived Office of Special Masters fee schedules for 2015–2017 to evaluate requested rates.
- The Special Master found the requested rates for Ms. Knickelbein and Mr. Shoemaker’s 2015–2016 rates reasonable, reduced Mr. Shoemaker’s 2017 rate from $446 to the $440 fee-schedule cap, and awarded all requested hours and costs as reasonable.
- The Special Master awarded $32,151.32 payable jointly to Petitioners and counsel, noting the award covers all legal expenses and § 15(e)(3) bars additional collection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs | Petitioners sought fees and costs after unsuccessful petition, relying on Vaccine Act §15(e). | Respondent conceded statutory requirements were met and deferred to Special Master on amount. | Award of attorneys’ fees and costs granted under the Vaccine Act. |
| Appropriate hourly rates | Mr. Shoemaker requested $415 (2015), $430 (2016), $446 (2017); Ms. Knickelbein requested $350/$365/$378 (2015–2017). | Respondent did not contest reasonableness but asked Special Master to set reasonable rates per fee schedule. | Rates for Ms. Knickelbein and Shoemaker’s 2015–2016 rates found reasonable; Shoemaker’s 2017 rate reduced to $440 (fee-schedule cap). |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Counsel submitted contemporaneous billing records and requested full payment of billed hours. | Respondent did not object to hours. | All billed hours were found reasonable and awarded in full. |
| Reimbursement of litigation costs | Petitioners sought reimbursement for collection/printing of medical records. | Respondent did not object. | Costs were reasonable and awarded in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (endorsing lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (lodestar formulation cited for fee calculation)
- Saxton v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir.) (special masters have wide discretion to determine fee reasonableness)
- Hines v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750 (Ct. Cl.) (reviewing court should grant special masters latitude on fee reasonableness)
- Savin v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl.) (requirement of contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Perreira v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl.) (costs must be reasonable)
- Beck v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.) (award covers all legal expenses and prevents additional client charges)