ISON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
1:19-vv-01918
Fed. Cl.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Maria L. Ison filed a petition in December 2019 seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
- Petitioner’s case involved significant development, including filing medical records, expert reports, and participation in alternative dispute resolution.
- The case has been pending for over four years, with no entitlement decision reached as of the May 2025 order.
- Petitioner’s counsel requested $94,326.64 in interim attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during this protracted litigation.
- Respondent did not object to the motion and deferred to the Special Master on whether criteria for interim fees and costs were met.
- The Special Master granted the petitioner's request for interim fees and costs in full, finding both the rates and amounts reasonable given the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interim Award Justified | Fees/costs should be awarded now given long duration of case and hardship | Deferred to the court, did not object | Interim fees and costs appropriate given case length and hardship |
| Good Faith and Reasonable Basis | Petition met statutory requirements | Did not challenge good faith or basis | Statutory criteria for fees/costs met |
| Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Rates/Hours | Requested rates/hours consistent/justified | No explicit objection to rates/hours requested | Rates/hours requested found reasonable; no reductions |
| Reasonableness of Costs (Experts/Others) | Costs (expert, consultant, life care planner) reasonable, with documentation | No specific objections raised | Costs reasonable and fully reimbursed |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (clarifies standard for interim fee awards in protracted vaccine cases)
- Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 609 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (interim attorneys’ fees proper in cases of undue hardship and good faith)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special master’s discretion in determining reasonableness of fees)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (defines "prevailing market rate" standard for attorney's fees)