Masias v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 106 Fed. Cl. 700

Masías sought attorneys’ fees for an appeal to the Federal Circuit and a Supreme Court certiorari in a vaccine case following a merits settlement.
The special master used locality rates (Wyoming) rather than District of Columbia rates for calculating fees and the court affirmed; the Federal Circuit also affirmed; certiorari was denied.
Masías later sought fees for the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court appeals on the venue issue for calculating fees; the special master denied these fees relying on Wagner v. Shinseki.
Masías argued the special master lacked authority to apply a ‘degree of success’ test to fee-on-fees where the Vaccine Act does not include such a limitation.
The court remanded for reconsideration in light of the opinion’s discussion, clarifying that fee awards under the Vaccine Act are governed by reasonableness and lodestar, not a degree-of-success test for appeals on fee decisions.
The decision emphasizes the Vaccine Act’s purpose to ensure access to competent counsel and remands for the special master to reassess fees on a reasonable-basis standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wagner’s degree-of-success standard applies to Vaccine Act fee on fees.	Masías rejects applying Wagner.	Respondent applies Wagner to limit fees on fees.	Degree-of-success not controlling; remand for reasonableness.
Whether the Vaccine Act authorizes fees for appeals of fee decisions.	Masías entitlement to fees includes fee-related appeals.	Statute contemplates fees arising in proceedings, not appeals of fee decisions.	Statute supports fee awards in proceedings; remand to assess reasonableness.
What standard governs assessing reasonable fees for appeals and fees under the Act on remand.	Reasonableness should be assessed by lodestar, not success metrics.	Remand is necessary to determine appropriate fee amount.	Remand to special master to apply lodestar reasonableness; no degree-of-success-based reduction.

Wagner v. Shinseki, 640 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (supplemental fees commensurate with degree of success in EAJA context)
Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( Vaccine Act interpretation to ensure access to competent counsel)
Saunders v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (secondary purpose of ensuring available representation under Vaccine Act)
Saxton v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (standard of review for special master decisions in fees)
Munn v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (de novo review when the decision rests on conclusions of law)
Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1995) (illustrative comparison on supplemental fee awards across circuits)
Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995) (percent-of-fees awarded in supplemental fee contexts)