Linginfelter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-819

Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging arm pain, bursitis, and tendinitis after a 10/15/2014 influenza vaccination.
The special master dismissed the petition on 4/22/2016 for failure to make a prima facie showing of causation in fact.
On 6/10/2016 petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs: $13,759.00 in fees and $1,088.07 in costs (total $14,847.07); counsel stated petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
Respondent did not oppose fee eligibility but argued reasonable fees and costs should be between $6,200 and $7,500, citing two dismissed Vaccine Act cases.
Petitioner replied, submitting a list of 24 SIRVA-related settlements handled by petitioner’s firm averaging $15,648.67 in fees and costs, and requested an additional $550 for preparing the reply (total requested $15,397.07).
The special master reviewed billing records, favored SIRVA comparators over respondent’s cited diabetes cases, found petitioner’s request reasonable, and awarded $15,397.07 jointly payable to petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs despite dismissal	Linginfelter argued she litigated in good faith with a reasonable basis, entitling her to fees under the Vaccine Act	Respondent agreed statutory requirements for fee eligibility were met	Fee eligibility satisfied; fees may be awarded despite dismissal
Proper amount of attorneys’ fees and costs	Requested $14,847.07, later $15,397.07 including $550 for the reply; relied on firm’s SIRVA settlement averages	Proposed a much lower reasonable range ($6,200–$7,500), citing prior dismissed cases as comparators	Special master found petitioner’s requested amount reasonable and awarded $15,397.07
Weight of comparator cases	Cited 24 SIRVA settlements and firm averages to justify requested fee level	Cited two Tait diabetes cases with much lower awards to support a lower range	Special master found SIRVA comparators more persuasive and discounted respondent’s diabetes cases as poor analogues
Allowability of supplemental time for reply	Sought $550 for two hours drafting reply (researching past SIRVA cases)	Did not object to the supplemental time specifically	Awarded the supplemental fees as reasonable

Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (special masters have wide discretion in awarding reasonable fees and costs)
Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming deference to special masters' fee determinations)
Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (recognizing special masters’ use of program experience in fee review)