Panaitescu v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-753
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Petitioners Christian and Mihaela Panaitescu filed a Vaccine Act claim on behalf of their son R.P., alleging injury from a 2013 DTaP vaccination; the case was dismissed May 18, 2017 for insufficient proof.
- After dismissal, petitioners moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $15,062.46 (fees $14,467.00; costs $195.00; petitioner out-of-pocket $400.46).
- Respondent did not contest good faith or reasonable basis and deferred to the Special Master’s discretion on a reasonable award.
- The Special Master applied the lodestar method: hours × reasonable hourly rates, with possible upward/downward adjustments for billing issues.
- The Special Master found the 2016 rates reasonable, adjusted two 2017 attorney rates downward to fit the 2017 OSM Fee Schedule, and identified excessive intra-office communications and vague billing entries.
- Result: attorney fee award reduced (10% overall reduction plus small rate adjustments); costs and petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses awarded in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees/costs are awardable after dismissal | Petitioners sought full reasonable fees and costs incurred. | Respondent stated Vaccine Act/Rule 13 do not require respondent role but did not oppose an award and deferred to Special Master. | Awardable where petition was brought in good faith with reasonable basis; award granted in discretion. |
| Proper hourly rates for counsel (2017) | Counsel sought specific 2017 rates for Shoemaker, Gentry, Knickelbein. | Respondent offered no substantive challenge to rates. | 2016 rates approved; 2017 rates for Shoemaker and Gentry reduced to upper limits of 2017 Fee Schedule ($440 and $424); Knickelbein’s 2017 rate approved. |
| Fee reductions for intra-office communications and vague entries | Petitioners included multiple billing entries for internal emails/meetings and some vague entries. | Respondent did not challenge specifics. | Fee award reduced by 10% overall to account for excessive intra-office communication and vagueness. |
| Reasonableness of claimed costs and petitioner out-of-pocket expenses | Petitioners requested $195 (records/photocopies) and $400.46 (filing/postage). | Respondent did not object to costs. | All requested costs and petitioner out-of-pocket expenses awarded in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (approves lodestar approach under the Vaccine Act)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar methodology for fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir.) (special master may reduce hours based on experience and judgment)
- Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl.) (requirement for contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (Fed. Cl.) (special master may reduce fees sua sponte and for inefficient multiple-attorney billing)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Fed. Cl.) (no line-by-line analysis required when reducing fees)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl.) (cost requests must be reasonable)
- Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751 (Ct. Cl.) (fee applications must sufficiently detail time billed)