Raymo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
129 Fed. Cl. 691
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Petitioners Kevin and Heather Raymo filed a Vaccine Act claim on behalf of their minor daughter H.T.R., alleging vaccines caused transverse myelitis and resulting paralysis; entitlement was awarded in 2014 and compensation stipulated in 2015.
- After judgment on entitlement, petitioners sought $728,701.40 in attorneys’ fees and costs; Chief Special Master Dorsey awarded $368,953.81 after reductions and a partial grant on reconsideration for economist fees.
- The chief special master applied the lodestar method, used local Louisiana/Arkansas rates under the Davis County exception, and applied the McCulloch framework to set hourly rates.
- The chief special master disallowed or reclassified many time entries as non-compensable administrative/clerical work, applied paralegal rates where appropriate, reduced travel time rates, disallowed time for learning basic Vaccine Program concepts, and disallowed court admission time.
- The chief special master imposed percentage reductions for excessive and duplicative billing (40% on Andry Law Group; 20% on Domengeaux Wright) after identifying specific examples of redundant entries and excessive inter/intra-firm communications.
- On costs, the chief special master reduced Dr. Kinsbourne’s rate from $500 to $400, denied costs for Dr. Becker (for inadequate documentation and prior findings of plagiarism), cut life-care planner fees by 50% for vagueness and excess, reduced certain travel and luxury transport costs, and denied interest on loans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rate for senior attorney Bob Wright | Wright should receive $425/hr to reflect 57 years’ experience and reputation | Apply local vaccine rates and adjust modestly for vaccine-specific experience | Court upheld $325/hr; special master increased baseline modestly because Wright lacked vaccine-program track record |
| Reclassification/exclusion of administrative, paralegal, travel, Court admission, and Vaccine-basics research hours | Time was reasonable given case complexity and need to prepare; multiple attorneys reasonably staffed the matter | Many entries were clerical, paralegal, travel, or non-compensable under precedent; documentation showed secretarial and duplicative entries | Court affirmed detailed item-by-item reductions and reclassifications; discretion not abused |
| Percentage cuts for duplicative/excessive billing (40% Andry; 20% Domengeaux Wright) | Blanket percentage cuts arbitrary; multiple attorneys’ collaboration is reasonable in complex cases (Holton) | Reductions justified by many specific instances of duplication, double-billing, erroneous entries, and excessive intra/inter-firm communications | Court upheld percentage reductions because special master provided specific findings supporting them |
| Expert and other costs (Kinsbourne, Becker, life-care planners, travel, interest on loans) | Kinsbourne deserved $500/hr; Becker and other costs were reasonable; interest on loans should be compensable | Kinsbourne’s role differed from prior cases; Becker’s records were inadequate and prior findings undermined his credibility; life-care planners’ records vague and rates excessive; interest not recoverable against the government | Court upheld reductions/denials: Kinsbourne $400/hr; Becker costs denied; life-care planners reduced 50%; certain travel reduced; interest on loans denied under no-interest sovereign-immunity rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorsing lodestar approach and possible adjustments)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar multiplication of hours by reasonable rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary need not be compensated)
- Saxton v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special master may reduce fees for duplication and may rely on program experience)
- Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Spec. Serv. Dist. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (forum vs. local rate exception)
- International Rectifier Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 424 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (percentage fee reductions subject to heightened scrutiny and require explanation)
- Davis v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 105 Fed. Cl. 627 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion review of special masters)
- Preseault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (no-interest rule against recovery of interest from the government)