Rutschman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 15-925

Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging SIRVA from Oct 24, 2014 influenza and PCV-13 vaccinations; respondent proffered and petitioner was awarded compensation on Feb 18, 2016.
Petitioner’s counsel (Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C.) sought attorneys’ fees and costs of $24,993.65 for 80.10 hours of work plus $1,053.65 in expenses.
Respondent acknowledged statutory entitlement to fees but declined to contest specifics, suggesting a lower reasonable range ($11,000–$14,000) based on a few prior SIRVA cases and stated lack of resources to fully litigate rates.
Special Master initially considered waiting for resolution of McLaren firm forum-rate disputes in other cases but determined further delay was inequitable given respondent’s decision not to litigate rates here.
On review, the Special Master found no cause to reduce billed hours or costs and awarded the full requested sum of $24,993.65, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act	Rutschman sought reasonable fees/costs of $24,993.65 for work performed and expenses advanced	Respondent agreed petitioner met statutory requirements but declined to contest specifics; proposed lower range $11k–$14k without detailed objections	Awarded full $24,993.65; petitioner entitled to fees and costs and no reductions warranted
Appropriate hourly rates / forum rates for McLaren firm	Implicitly sought requested rates as billed (did not press a separate forum-rate dispute here)	Respondent did not press the hourly-rate issue in this case and deferred to Special Master’s discretion	Special Master declined to resolve forum-rate question here and awarded fees despite unresolved rate litigation elsewhere
Whether further delay was warranted pending resolution of rate disputes in companion cases	Implicit argument favoring timely payment of fees	Respondent suggested efficiency but did not intend to litigate rates here; lacked resources to contest rates now	Special Master found delay inequitable and proceeded to award fees now
Reduction of billed hours or expenses	Asserted billed hours and costs were reasonable and supported by records	Respondent offered no substantive reductions; cited similar cases but provided little analysis	No reductions; billing and costs accepted as reasonable by Special Master

Wasson v. HHS, 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (special master relied on experience and precedent regarding fee reasonableness)
Wasson v. HHS, 988 F.2d 131 (affirming aspects of fee-review deference)