Loving v. Hhs, 02-469

Petitioners Christopher and Carla Loving previously obtained compensation for their daughter and are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Vaccine Act; earlier interim fees of $140,000 were awarded on Sept. 10, 2014.
After dispute arose over expert Dr. Shuman’s invoices (roughly 811 hours requested), the court conducted ADR and extensive briefing; the Special Master ultimately awarded two-thirds of Dr. Shuman’s requested fees in the Expert Fees Decision.
Petitioners’ counsel, William Dobreff, billed 33.45 hours (May 12, 2014 to date) and sought $8,362.50 (at $250/hr) in additional "fees for fees" by motion filed Jan. 6, 2016.
The Secretary opposed the fee application, arguing most post-May 12, 2014 work was spent trying to cure deficiencies in Dr. Shuman’s invoices that should have been fixed earlier, and thus additional fees should be denied.
The Special Master found the lodestar (33.45 hrs × $250/hr = $8,362.50) reasonable but reduced it because (1) counsel failed to monitor and correct Dr. Shuman’s defective billing early (causing the dispute), and (2) counsel’s work during the fee dispute was largely ineffective and in some ways unhelpful.
Applying a downward adjustment to reflect counsel’s responsibility and limited utility, the Special Master awarded 25% of the lodestar: $2,090.63, in addition to prior awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether additional "fees for fees" for Dobreff (33.45 hrs at $250/hr) are reasonable	Dobreff billed reasonable hours and rate; fees are warranted given case length and complexity	Work after May 12, 2014 was largely corrective of deficiencies that should have been addressed earlier and thus should not be awarded	Lodestar accepted but reduced: fees awarded at 25% of requested ($2,090.63)
Whether counsel’s failure to supervise expert justifies fee reduction	Petitioners did not contest duty to monitor but sought fees anyway	Secretary argued counsel’s lack of oversight caused the dispute and fees should be denied	Counsel’s failure to monitor Dr. Shuman was a primary cause of the fee dispute and supports downward adjustment
Whether counsel’s litigation of expert fees contributed usefully to resolution	Petitioners claimed work was necessary to defend expert billing	Secretary argued much of the work was ineffective, confusing, or unnecessary	Much of counsel’s work was unhelpful; only limited work (e.g., spreadsheet) was useful—supports reduction
Whether downward departure from lodestar is appropriate	Petitioners sought full lodestar without reduction	Secretary urged complete denial or significant reduction	Exceptional circumstances justified reduction to 25% of lodestar; award granted accordingly

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (lodestar method and possible upward/downward departure)
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fee applicants must exercise billing judgment)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar adjustments may be based on specific findings)
Schuenemeyer v. United States, 776 F.2d 329 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded for litigation over fees)
Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., 811 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (lodestar may be adjusted for attorney performance or conduct)