Rojas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-1220
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Petitioner Brandy Rojas filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging SIRVA after a 2013 influenza vaccination; entitlement was awarded and damages awarded per respondent’s proffer.
- Petitioner sought $47,489.50 in attorneys’ fees and $25,994.02 in costs; billing reflected work by three attorneys (Travis, Henning, Henning-Rutz) and paralegals across two firms.
- Primary dispute concerned appropriate hourly rates: petitioner requested $325/hr (forum rate) for lead and assisting counsel; respondent declined to substantively oppose fee amount but asked the Special Master to exercise discretion.
- The Special Master applied the lodestar method and considered whether the Davis exception (local vs. forum rate analysis) required use of local Montana rates rather than Washington, D.C. forum rates.
- After evaluating local Montana market evidence, prior Vaccine Program rate guidance (McCulloch tiers), counsel experience, and billing records, the Special Master awarded reduced fees and costs totaling $51,131.97 (down from $73,258.52 requested).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rate (forum vs local) | Travis: $325/hr is a reasonable forum rate given experience and McCulloch guidance; local rates only ~20% lower so Davis exception not met | Respondent: declined to contest statutory entitlement but left rate determination to Special Master | Court applied Davis analysis, found local rates appropriate: awarded $230/hr for Travis and Henning-Rutz, $280/hr for Henning (not forum rates) |
| Application of McCulloch forum-rate tiers | Petitioner relied on McCulloch ranges to justify $325/hr | Respondent did not challenge use of McCulloch framework but did not stipulate rates | Court adopted McCulloch tiers for analysis but adjusted awards downward due to limited Vaccine Program experience and local market realities |
| Reasonableness of billed hours | Petitioner submitted detailed invoices; sought full recovery | Respondent left discretion to Special Master | Special Master disallowed hours for counsel’s Vaccine-Program learning/research (6.8 hrs) and reduced travel billing by 50%; otherwise accepted most hours |
| Recoverability & amount of expert/life‑care costs | Petitioner sought $22,664.42 for a life‑care plan plus other costs | Respondent did not object to entitlement but left cost reasonableness to Special Master | Court recalculated and reduced life‑care plan to $15,906.37 (disallowed interest, corrected invoice math, halved travel time billing) and disallowed CFCC bar admission fee ($281) |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (establishes forum-rate presumptive rule and Davis exception analysis)
- Rodriguez v. HHS, 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir.) (affirms forum-rate approach in Vaccine Program)
- Masias v. HHS, 634 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir.) (discusses substantial percent differentials between forum and local rates)
- Hall v. HHS, 640 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (rejects bright-line test; discretion to special masters on Davis exception)
- Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. EPA, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir.) (origin of Davis exception regarding forum vs local rates)
- Saxton v. HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir.) (special masters have wide discretion in fee awards)
- Garrison v. HHS, 128 F. Cl. 99 (Ct. Fed. Cl.) (upheld awarding forum rates where differential not "very significant"; affirms special-master discretion)