Lawson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-1152
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Petitioner Mazie Lawson filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging a shoulder injury (SIRVA) from a Tdap vaccine administered April 22, 2014.
- The parties filed a stipulation; on June 10, 2016 the Chief Special Master issued a decision awarding compensation based on that stipulation.
- Petitioner then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs: $14,655.00 in fees and $1,118.48 in costs (total $15,773.48). Counsel stated petitioner had no out-of-pocket expenses.
- Respondent did not oppose entitlement, but suggested a reasonable total fee range of $12,000–$14,000 based on similar SIRVA cases and her experience.
- The special master reviewed billing records, found the requested hours and rates reasonable, and awarded the full requested fees and costs plus $440.00 for time spent preparing the reply, for a lump sum award of $16,213.48 payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act | Entitlement met; fees and costs requested are reasonable | Respondent concedes statutory requirements are met (no challenge to entitlement) | Entitlement granted; fees and costs awarded |
| Reasonableness of the total amount requested | Requested $15,773.48 based on counsel’s billing; submitted detailed records | Suggested a lower reasonable range ($12,000–$14,000) based on similar cases and experience, but made no precise objections | Special master found records and amounts reasonable and did not reduce the requested hours or rates |
| Whether respondent has a role in resolving fee requests under Vaccine Rule 13 | Argues fee petition is properly resolved by the special master; respondent’s input not binding | Respondent asserts Vaccine Act/Rule 13 do not contemplate respondent’s role but still provided a reasoned range | Special master accepted respondent’s statement but applied independent review; outcome unaffected by respondent’s nonbinding range |
| Additional fees for preparing the reply brief | Requested $440.00 (1.6 hours) for reply preparation | Respondent offered no specific objection to the additional hours | Special master found the additional hours reasonable and awarded the $440.00; warned similar future filings could be reduced |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.) (attorney fee awards under Vaccine Act encompass all charges, and attorneys may not collect fees beyond the statutory award)