Scharfenberger v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
124 Fed. Cl. 225
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Petitioner Scott Scharfenberger filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging GBS from an influenza vaccine; parties settled and judgment awarded $270,000.
- Petitioner sought $103,153.01 in attorneys’ fees and costs, including $61,983.70 for attorney Kalinowski (at $361/hr), paralegal fees, CliftonLarsonAllen accounting costs, and $12,561 for a Zuckerman Spaeder declaration supporting requested rates.
- The Special Master reduced the award to $79,213.71 by (1) setting Kalinowski’s 2014 rate at $305/hr (with CPI-adjusted lower rates for earlier years), (2) limiting paralegal rates to $125/hr (reducing amounts billed above that), and (3) denying reimbursement for Zuckerman Spaeder’s expert declaration while awarding CliftonLarsonAllen costs.
- Special Master based forum rates on the Vaccine Program practice community (not the broader D.C. Laffey matrix), evaluated comparators within the petitioner’s firm and Vaccine Program precedents, and found petitioner had not demonstrated entitlement to the higher rates or the expert expense.
- Petitioner moved for review, arguing (a) the Special Master should have applied the District of Columbia forum/Laffey rates and (b) the Special Master failed to apply a burden-shifting presumption of reasonableness.
- The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Special Master, finding no legal error or abuse of discretion, and separately awarded petitioner $22,412.76 for fees and costs incurred litigating the Motion for Review (using the same hourly-rate determinations and denying Zuckerman costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate forum for hourly rates | Apply D.C. forum rates generally (Laffey-informed); $361/hr for Kalinowski is reasonable | Forum should be Vaccine Program/Court of Federal Claims practitioners; Laffey is not controlling | Court upheld Special Master: use Vaccine Program forum; Kalinowski awarded $305/hr (2014) with CPI adjustments for prior years |
| Use of Laffey matrix | Laffey provides persuasive support; Special Master erred by discounting it | Laffey is designed for complex federal litigation and is not controlling in Vaccine Program cases | Court agreed Laffey is inapposite; Vaccine Program practitioner rates prevail per precedent |
| Burden‑shifting/presumption of reasonableness | Once petitioner shows community rates align, presumption shifts to respondent to rebut | Petitioner bears burden to supply satisfactory evidence of prevailing rates; Special Master may independently assess | Court held Special Master correctly applied burden: petitioner failed to prove higher rates; no improper burden-shifting |
| Reimbursement for retained expert (Zuckerman Spaeder) | Expert declaration (Murphy) supported reasonableness of rates and should be reimbursed | Expert was unnecessary for Vaccine Program rate analysis and not persuasive | Court affirmed denial of Zuckerman costs as discretionary and reasonable; CliftonLarsonAllen costs awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (endorsing lodestar method for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Laffey matrix not appropriate substitute for Vaccine Program forum rates)
- Masias v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 634 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming consideration of Vaccine Program practitioner rates)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (fee applicants must show requested rates align with prevailing community rates)
- Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 552 U.S. 571 (2008) (paralegals recover prevailing market rates)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (trial court must explain fee determinations with reasonable specificity)
- Hall v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 640 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard of review for special master fee determinations: abuse of discretion)