Solak v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
14-869
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 20, 2021Background
- Petitioner Diane Solak filed a Vaccine Program petition on Sept. 18, 2014, alleging multiple allergic reactions from a Sept. 30, 2011 influenza vaccination.
- The Special Master dismissed the petition on Feb. 19, 2021.
- On June 1, 2021, Solak sought final attorneys' fees and costs totaling $2,083.18 ($1,956.00 in fees; $127.18 in costs).
- Respondent stated that the statutory requirements for an award of fees and costs were satisfied and did not oppose the application.
- The Special Master had previously found the petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis and reviewed counsel’s contemporaneous billing records for reasonableness.
- The Special Master awarded the full requested amount, directing payment jointly to Petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees despite dismissal | Solak: petition filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis; therefore fees are recoverable | Sec'y: agreed statutory requirements for an award were met | Fees awarded; prior finding of good faith/reasonable basis supports award |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Counsel requested $385/hr (Downing) and $275/hr (Van Cott) for 2020–21 | No objection | Rates consistent with prior Program awards and found reasonable |
| Reasonableness of hours expended | Counsel submitted contemporaneous, detailed time records and requested $1,956 in fees | No objection | Time entries reviewed and found non-excessive; full fees awarded |
| Attorneys' costs | Requested $127.18 for legal research charges | No objection | Costs found reasonable and awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (fees may be awarded when petition filed in good faith and with reasonable basis)
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special master has wide discretion to determine fee reasonableness)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable hourly rates measured by prevailing market rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours should exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary work)
- Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (fee applications must include contemporaneous, specific billing records)
- Perreira v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 1992) (cost requests must be reasonable)
- Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379 (Ct. Cl. 1989) (administrative/clerical tasks are not compensable as attorney time)
- Hines v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750 (Cl. Ct. 1991) (reviewing court must grant special master wide latitude on fee reasonableness)