Jackson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-1217
| Fed. Cl. | May 23, 2017Background
- Petitioner Elizabeth Jackson filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging CIDP-like peripheral neuropathy and small fiber neuropathy after a 2012 influenza vaccination.
- Counsel collected medical records and consulted two experts but ultimately concluded entitlement was unlikely.
- Petitioner filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the claim; the special master dismissed the petition in March 2017.
- Petitioner then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs seeking $38,641.00 in fees and $27,067.31 in costs (total $65,708.31).
- Respondent did not oppose an award, stating statutory requirements were satisfied and deferring to the special master's discretion on a reasonable amount.
- The special master reviewed hourly rates, hours billed, and invoices and determined the requested rates, hours, and costs were reasonable and awarded the full requested amount, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees despite dismissal | Fees/costs recoverable because claim was brought in good faith and with reasonable basis | Agreed that statutory requirements are met; left amount to special master | Award permitted under 42 U.S.C. §300aa‑15(e)(1); fees awarded |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Requested rates for lead counsel, associates, and paralegals align with McCulloch/fee schedule and experience | No objection to requested rates | Special master found requested rates reasonable and awarded them |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | 135.90 hours billed with contemporaneous entries; tasks billed at appropriate (attorney/paralegal) rates | No objection | Hours were reasonable in amount and detail; awarded in full |
| Reasonableness of litigation costs | Costs for records, filing, postage, and expert consultation supported by receipts/invoices | No objection | Costs found reasonable and awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (standard for reasonableness review of fees and costs)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (1993) (special masters’ discretion in reducing fees for excessive or redundant hours)
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (2008) (lodestar approach approved for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (lodestar formulation: reasonable hours × reasonable rate)
- Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (2009) (special master may reduce fees sua sponte without advance notice)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (2011) (no requirement for line‑by‑line fee analysis)
- Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (1991) (attorney cannot collect fees beyond amount awarded under the Vaccine Act)