McGraw v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 12-282

Petitioner Dawn McGraw filed a Vaccine Program claim alleging Guillain-Barré Syndrome after Hep A/B vaccination; parties ultimately stipulated to damages and damages were awarded.
Petitioner sought attorneys’ fees of $48,329.20 and costs of $16,450.78; Respondent did not contest the amount substantively but asked the special master to exercise discretion.
Special Master Roth initially awarded $39,843.07 in fees and $16,450.78 in costs (total $56,293.85) and reduced requested fees for travel, excessive/duplicative work, vague entries, and clerical tasks.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, challenging the travel-time reduction, a mathematical travel-time computation, and the 15% overall reduction based on alleged billing deficiencies.
The special master: (a) corrected the travel-time math, awarding full rate for 5.2 hours of non-travel work (adding $780); (b) reaffirmed that travel is generally compensated at half rate when no work is performed while driving; (c) upheld the 15% percentage reduction for excessive, duplicative, vague, and clerical billing entries.
The amended award totaled $57,073.85 ($40,623.07 fees; $16,450.78 costs), payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Travel-time rate	Travel time should be paid at full hourly rate	Travel time customarily paid at one-half unless work done while traveling	Travel time paid at half rate; math error corrected so 3.3 hrs travel at half and 5.2 hrs at full rate awarded
Math on combined entry	Blocked entry showed only 3.3 travel hrs; rest non-travel — court miscomputed 9.7 hrs travel	Reduction based on billed travel total; block billing problematic	Court found block billing; but corrected computation and increased award by $780
15% percentage reduction for excessive hours (e.g., expert review)	Hours reviewing Dr. Steinman were reasonable and necessary	Many hours were excessive or duplicative; prior similar work and shared materials justified reduction	Reduction upheld: billed 16.2 hrs excessive; counsel paid for ~13.5 hrs at requested rate as reflected in reduction
Vague, clerical, duplicative billing	Some vagueness justified by privilege/work-product; clerical tasks were logistical	Vague entries and clerical tasks are non-compensable; duplication present	Court upheld reductions for vague entries, clerical tasks, and duplication and retained the 15% overall reduction

Hall v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 93 Fed. Cl. 239 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (standard for reconsideration under Vaccine Rule 10 and demanding showing)
Gruber ex rel. Gruber v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 91 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (travel time and fee award considerations)
Cedillo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 617 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reconsideration denied where evidence previously available)
Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fees may be reduced for excessive or unnecessary hours)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar/reduction principles for fee awards)
Raymo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 129 Fed. Cl. 691 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (percentage reduction for excessive hours permissible)
Valdes v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 89 Fed. Cl. 415 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (block billing is disfavored and may justify reductions)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 779 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (manifest injustice standard for reconsideration)
Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reducing fees for vague entries does not generally invade privilege)
Beck v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (awarded fees encompass all legal charges; counsel may not collect additional fees beyond award)