Kukreja v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-104
| Fed. Cl. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Parents Anil and Michal Kukreja filed a Vaccine Act petition for their son D.K. (myoclonic seizures after flu and Hep A vaccines) in Feb 2014; they initially proceeded pro se while consulting attorney Lisa Roquemore.
- Roquemore advised the family starting mid-2014, executed a retainer in Sept 2014, received a draft expert report in late Jan 2015, then filed a motion to substitute in Feb 2015; the case later proceeded toward an entitlement hearing before settling for $15,000 in Jan 2017.
- Petitioners sought $112,791.60 in fees and costs; the special master found rates and costs reasonable but (1) excluded all pre-appearance attorney time and (2) reduced post-appearance hours by 20%, yielding a substantially lower award.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration (including fees for that motion); the special master denied relief; petitioners then sought review in the Court of Federal Claims arguing lack of adequate explanation for the percentage reduction and for the categorical pre-appearance exclusion.
- The Court reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard for fee determinations, concluding the categorical exclusion of all pre-appearance time was an abuse of discretion but upholding that only pre-appearance work after a reasonable start date should be compensated; it also rejected the special master’s 20% post-appearance percentage reduction and awarded fees for the reconsideration motion and the review motion.
Issues
| Issue | Kukreja's Argument | HHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all pre-appearance hours billed by Roquemore should be excluded | Exclusion was arbitrary; work was reasonable given statute-of-limitations pressure and counsel’s limited pre-filing role | Special master found undisclosed ‘shadow counsel’ conduct and tactical delay justified exclusion | Court: Categorical exclusion was an abuse of discretion; compensable pre-appearance work begins July 16, 2014; earlier hours disallowed |
| Whether a 20% across-the-board reduction for post-appearance work was justified by disparity between fees sought and settlement | Reduction penalizes reasonable prospective preparation for hearing and is retrospective | Special master relied on gross disparity and some poor billing judgment to justify rough-justice percentage cut | Court: Reversed the 20% cut; post-appearance hours were reasonable given preparation for an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether fees for work on the motion for reconsideration and for review are recoverable | Motion for reconsideration was reasonable because petitioners had no prior hearing on fees; sought compensation for that work | Special master called the request “bold” and denied it | Court: Awarded fees for the motion for reconsideration and for motion to review as reasonable |
| Standard and required explanation for percentage reductions in fee awards | Petitioners: special master must provide specific, lucid explanation linking reduction to reasonableness | Respondent: deferential review to special master’s discretion | Court: Affirms heightened scrutiny for percentage reductions and requires concise, clear explanatory rationale; here special master’s reasons insufficient for categorical exclusion and for percentage cut |
Key Cases Cited
- Munn v. Secretary of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (standards of review for special master decisions)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (lodestar approach and deference to special master on fees)
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (lodestar method for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (concept of "rough justice" in fee adjustments)
- Simmons v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard applied to special master fee rulings)
- International Rectifier Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 424 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (heightened scrutiny for percentage reductions)
- Rehn v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 126 Fed. Cl. 86 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (reasonable-basis discussion regarding need for medical opinion)