Schoonover v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-1324
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Petitioner Lori Schoonover filed a Vaccine Act petition on Oct. 12, 2016, alleging a shoulder injury (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine given Oct. 16, 2013.
- A ruling on entitlement was entered Jan. 30, 2019, and damages were awarded Aug. 5, 2020.
- On Mar. 29, 2021 petitioner sought attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $35,777.14 ($34,825.20 fees; $951.94 costs).
- Respondent did not oppose the award and stated statutory requirements for fees and costs were met.
- The Special Master applied the lodestar method, reviewed rates and billing records, found rates and hours reasonable, and approved the full requested fees and costs.
- The award of $35,777.14 is to be paid jointly to petitioner and counsel; judgment will be entered absent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs after a compensation award | Fees and costs are recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(e)(1) following entitlement and damages | Agreed that statutory requirements are met and award is appropriate | Fees and costs awarded in full |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Counsel requested previously-awarded Vaccine Program rates for Muller Brazil attorneys | Did not contest the requested rates | Rates accepted as consistent with prior awards |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Billing records are contemporaneous, detailed, and hours reflect work performed | No objection to hours billed | Total hours found reasonable; no reduction made |
| Reasonableness of requested costs | Costs ($951.94) are supported (medical records, filing fee, postage) | No objection to costs | Costs awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar approach for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (lodestar formula: hours times reasonable rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special masters may reduce hours to reasonable amount)
- Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (2008) (fee requests must include contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (2009) (special masters may reduce fees sua sponte without prior notice)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (2011) (no line-by-line analysis required when reducing fees)
- Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (1991) (special masters may rely on prior experience to evaluate fee requests)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (courts may use overall sense of a case and estimates when adjusting awards)
- Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751 (1989) (fee applications must sufficiently detail billed time to permit reasonableness review)