Rodriguez Ex Rel. Estate of Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2399
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- This case concerns the reasonable hourly rate for Vaccine Act attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1).
- Rodriguez sought fees for McHugh and Gaynor, with requested rates increasing over time.
- The special master rejected the Laffey Matrix as prima facie forum rate and used a multifactor evidentiary approach.
- The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the special master's decision.
- The court analyzes whether DC forum rates or other evidence should determine the lodestar rate under the Vaccine Act.
- Key authorities and policy considerations include Laffey, Avera, and Burlington v. Dague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum-rate determination for Vaccine Act fees | Rodriguez: Laffey Matrix provides prima facie forum rate | HHS: Laffey matrix not automatic for Vaccine Act; multifactor evidence controls | No; court affirmed use of evidence-based approach, not prima facie Laffey. |
| Appropriate standard of review | Rodriguez: de novo review of legal standards | HHS: deferential review for factual findings | Deferential review for factual decisions; de novo for legal standards. |
| Role of Laffey Matrix in forum-rate analysis | Rodriguez: Laffey should apply | HHS: Laffey not controlling for Vaccine Act | Laffey not controlling; requires consideration of diverse evidence. |
| Adequacy of the special master's evidentiary base | Rodriguez: evidence should include negotiated DC rates and comparable practices | HHS: evidence properly weighed by special master | Special master’s evidentiary selection upheld; rates properly explained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (forum-rate framework for complex federal litigation; not directly transferable to Vaccine Act)
- Avera v. Sec'y of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (forum rate generally; limits and exceptions for out-of-forum work)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (contingency enhancements not permitted; lodestar considerations)
- Walther v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 485 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (table injury and fee considerations under Vaccine Act)
- Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Spec. Serv. Dist. v. U.S. E.P.A., 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (discounts or adjustments in forum-rate analyses)