Miller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-943
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition on August 28, 2015, alleging multiple sclerosis caused by influenza and Tdap vaccines received on September 17, 2012.
- The parties stipulated to compensation, and on November 4, 2016 the special master issued a damages decision awarding petitioner $195,000.
- On March 15, 2017 petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs seeking $15,398.00 in fees and $1,022.49 in costs (total $16,420.49), and filed the required statement that petitioner did not advance costs.
- Respondent filed a response stating she was satisfied the statutory requirements for an award were met and deferred to the special master to determine a reasonable award.
- The special master reviewed counsel’s billing records, exercised her discretion, and found the requested fees and costs reasonable.
- The special master awarded the full requested amount, $16,420.49, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel; judgment was directed to be entered absent a review motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs following a compensation award | Miller sought fees and costs under the Vaccine Act because the petition resulted in compensation | HHS agreed statutory requirements were satisfied and recommended the special master determine a reasonable amount | Award of attorneys’ fees and costs was appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1) |
| Whether the amount requested is reasonable | Requested $15,398.00 (fees) and $1,022.49 (costs); provided billing records | Respondent did not contest the amount and deferred to the special master’s discretion | Special master reviewed records, found request reasonable, and awarded the full $16,420.49 |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (awarding fees and costs after a petitioner obtains compensation under the Vaccine Act is required)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (special masters have wide discretion in fee determinations)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming aspects of fee award review)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (1993) (special masters may rely on prior experience when reviewing fee applications)