Previti v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-843
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Petitioner Nicole Previti filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging brachial neuritis caused by a 4/26/2012 Tdap vaccination; compensation was awarded by stipulation on 9/12/2016.
- On 11/23/2016 petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $80,575.22 (fees $61,926.00; costs $18,649.22); petitioner reported no out-of-pocket expenses.
- Respondent stated she plays no role in fee-resolution but agreed statutory prerequisites for an award were met and deferred to the Special Master’s discretion.
- The Special Master applied reasoning from a prior decision addressing McLaren firm rates (Henry) and reviewed billing records for reasonableness.
- The Special Master reduced travel time billing by 50% (reducing $385.25) and adjusted 2016 paralegal/law clerk rates (reducing $133.50), finding all other hours and costs reasonable.
- The resulting lump-sum award was $80,056.47, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel; clerk ordered to enter judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act | Previti sought reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $80,575.22 after a successful stipulation-based award | Respondent asserted she has no role in fee resolution but conceded statutory requirements for an award were satisfied | Special Master awarded fees and costs, finding statutory requirements met and fees generally reasonable |
| Proper reductions to billed amounts (travel time and 2016 paralegal/law clerk rates) | Counsel billed full travel hours and requested firm’s standard rates for paralegals/clerks | Respondent did not contest specifics; Special Master applied precedent to reduce travel and certain 2016 support-staff rates | Special Master reduced travel time compensation by 50% and lowered 2016 paralegal/law clerk rates, producing a final award of $80,056.47 |
Key Cases Cited
- No authorities with official reporter citations were cited in the decision (the opinion relied on prior unpublished/Federal Claims Special Master decisions identified by WL citations).