Riddle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-1323
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Petitioner Dana Riddle filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging Tdap vaccination (Dec. 23, 2014) caused myalgia/arthralgia; matter resolved by joint stipulation and damages decision entered May 18, 2017.
- Petitioner sought attorneys’ fees of $28,281.00 and costs of $5,814.07; respondent did not contest entitlement and asked the special master to determine a reasonable award.
- Fee petition included contemporaneous billing records listing hours, tasks, and rates for attorneys, associates, law clerks, and paralegals.
- The special master applied the lodestar method (hours × reasonable hourly rates), using forum-rate schedules established in prior Vaccine Program precedent.
- The special master awarded requested partner/associate/paralegal rates in full, adjusted law clerk rates to conform to the fee schedules (resulting in a small reduction of $99.30), found hours reasonable, and awarded all requested costs.
- Total award: $33,995.77, payable jointly to Petitioner and counsel; judgment to be entered absent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act | Riddle sought reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑15(e) | Respondent agreed statutory requirements met and deferred to special master on amount | Fees and costs awarded under Vaccine Act |
| Appropriate method to calculate fees | Lodestar (hours × reasonable rates) with potential adjustments | Agreed to lodestar/motion practice; left amount to special master | Lodestar applied per Avera/Blum; special master may adjust |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates (forum rates) for firm attorneys | Requested forum rates previously awarded to the firm (specific annual rates for 2015–2017) | No objection; urged special master discretion to set reasonable rates | Requested attorney, associate, and paralegal rates awarded in full as consistent with fee schedules |
| Law clerk hourly rates | Firm requested higher law clerk rates for 2015–2017 | No objection contesting reasonableness, but special master to apply fee schedule caps | Reduced law clerk rates to match 2016–2017 fee schedules, reducing award by $99.30 |
| Number of hours expended | Billing entries submitted; hours reasonable and supported | No objection to hours | Hours found reasonable and awarded in full |
| Reimbursement of costs (records, experts, travel, filing) | Requested $5,814.07 in costs with supporting invoices | Respondent did not contest reasonableness | All costs awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorsing lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable fee measured by prevailing market rate and hours reasonably expended)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special masters have wide discretion to determine fee reasonableness)
- Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750 (Ct. Cl. 1991) (reviewing court grants special masters broad latitude on fee awards)
- Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (fees application must include contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (cost requests must be reasonable)
- Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (attorney cannot collect fees beyond amount awarded under Vaccine Act)