Masias v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5011
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Masias sought attorneys' fees under the Vaccine Act after a vaccine injury claim; settlement resolved without a causation determination.
- Interim Decision awarded $42,065.50 in fees and $6,302.15 in costs for the merits phase; total interim award $48,367.65.
- Final Fees Decision awarded an additional $19,035.25 in fees and $14,873.32 in costs; final total beyond interim was $33,908.57.
- Special master used a Davis County locality-rate approach, assigning Cheyenne rates ($160–$220) rather than Washington, D.C. Laffey Matrix rates.
- Masias challenged the rate methodology and sought review in the Court of Federal Claims, which denied relief; Masias appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- Fed. Cir. affirmed the Court of Federal Claims, upholding the Davis County approach and the reasonableness of the awarded rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Davis County locality-rate exception applies | Masias argues for Laffey Matrix/Forum rate rather than locality rate. | HHS asserts Davis County exception controls, justifying Cheyenne rates. | Davis County exception applies; Laffey Matrix not used. |
| Whether the hourly rate of $160–$220 for Moxley is reasonable | Masias contends a federal specialty or higher rate is warranted. | Special master properly relied on Blum and local Wyoming evidence; no federal specialty. | Rate range deemed reasonable under Blum and Davis County framework. |
| Whether the evidence supports using Wyoming local rates rather than Laffey Matrix | Masias argues complex Vaccine Act practice merits higher or federal-style rates. | Evidence shows no comparable 'similar services' to Laffey; local rates appropriate. | Wyoming local rates used; no error in weighting of affidavits and prior decisions. |
| Whether the Vaccine Act's special-master framework violates the Appointments Clause | Special masters are principal officers requiring Senate confirmation. | Special masters are inferior officers under Edmond, with limited review by CF Claims. | Special masters are inferior officers; Act does not violate the Appointments Clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (forum vs locality rates; Davis County exception adopted)
- Davis County Solid Waste Management & Energy Recovery Special Service District v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (locality-rate exception framework for attorney fees)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable hourly rate equals prevailing market rate in community)
- Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (U.S. 2008) (market rates for paralegal time under EAJA)
- Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1997) (inferior vs principal officers; supervision and review structure)