Karl v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-36
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- Petitioner Joan Karl filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging the January 6, 2012 influenza vaccine caused tachycardia and related cardiac symptoms; petition filed January 16, 2014.
- The parties engaged in fact and expert development, exchanged reports, and participated in settlement negotiations; a joint stipulation of settlement was filed April 21, 2016 and approved April 22, 2016.
- Petitioner moved for attorney’s fees and costs totaling $29,749.31, with detailed time records and requested hourly rates for attorney Howard Gold varying by year ($345–$370) and paralegal rates ($110–$125).
- Respondent raised only a limited objection, noting inconsistency with rates Gold had sought in earlier cases but offered no alternative rate or detailed challenge.
- The special master applied the lodestar approach and McCulloch framework for forum rates, found the Davis exception inapplicable (Boston forum vs. D.C.), and determined Gold’s experience justified the requested rates.
- The special master awarded the full requested fees and costs ($29,749.31), payable jointly to petitioner and counsel, and directed entry of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested hourly rates for attorney are reasonable under Vaccine Act fee rules | Requested forum rates of $345–$370 based on counsel’s 24 years’ practice and Vaccine Program experience | Respondent noted prior lower rates requested by counsel in other cases but offered no specific alternative rate | Awarded requested forum rates; counsel’s experience and McCulloch ranges supported the rates |
| Whether Davis exception requires applying a non-forum rate (based on counsel’s Boston practice) | Petitioner argued Boston is not sufficiently below D.C. forum rates to trigger Davis exception | Respondent did not press a Davis-justified deviation | Davis exception found inapplicable; forum rates applied |
| Whether hours and billing entries were reasonable and non-duplicative | Detailed time records showed work supporting settlement and prosecution; requested hours reasonable | Respondent made no substantive hours objections | Hours and entries found reasonable; no reductions made |
| Whether full amount of fees and costs should be awarded | Requested total $29,749.31 covering all fees and costs | Respondent did not oppose award of reasonable fees; only noted prior rate differences | Full requested award granted and ordered payable jointly to client and counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec'y of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (forum-rate presumptive rule; Davis exception discussed)
- Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (U.S.) (lodestar fee calculation principle)
- Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir.) (Davis exception standard for locality deviation)
- Beck v. Sec'y of HHS, 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.) (attorney may not collect fees beyond awarded amount)
- Broekelschen v. Sec'y of HHS, 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Ct. Cl.) (no line-by-line reduction required; discretion in awarding fees)