Stapleton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-234
Fed. Cl.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Program claim alleging SIRVA from an influenza vaccine (filed Feb 17, 2016); entitlement was awarded May 31, 2016 and damages of $145,000 were awarded Feb 16, 2017.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs: initial request $75,358.36; after guidance amended to request $49,090.30 (fees $48,104; costs $986.30).
- Special Master identified multiple deficiencies: lack of supporting evidence for requested hourly rates, excessive billing, billing for non-compensable tasks (USCFC admission, learning Vaccine Program), and attorney-rate billing for paralegal tasks.
- Respondent deferred to the Special Master to determine a reasonable award; petitioner filed no reply to the response.
- Applying Program standards and the Special Master’s experience, the request was reduced by 25% for excessive and unsupported billing; costs were awarded in full.
- Final award: $36,078.00 in attorneys’ fees + $986.30 in costs = $37,064.30, to be paid jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are requested hourly rates reasonable? | Rates ($415 for Clancy, $225 for Downs) are within Office of Special Masters forum ranges and thus reasonable. | Deferred to Special Master to evaluate reasonableness. | Rates not expressly adjusted, but lack of supporting evidence led Special Master to apply a global fee reduction instead of crediting the top forum rates. |
| Are hours billed reasonable and compensable? | Counsel billed 162.2 hours for attorney work on the case. | Respondent deferred; Special Master reviewed for excess, duplication, and non-compensable items. | Significant reductions: non-compensable hours (USCFC admission, program education) and excessive/duplicative entries led to a 25% across-the-board fee reduction. |
| Are costs claimed compensable? | $986.30 in attorney costs supported by receipts. | Deferred. | Full award of $986.30 in costs. |
| Can attorney-rate apply to paralegal tasks? | Billed certain administrative/paralegal tasks at attorney rates. | Deferred. | Paralegal-type tasks are not compensable at attorney rates; this practice contributed to the global reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fees expected to be modest under Vaccine Act no-fault system)
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (lodestar method and forum-rate rule; Davis exception explained)
- Hines v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750 (Cl. Ct. 1991) (special masters have wide latitude in fee reasonableness determinations)
- Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (Cl. Ct. 1991) (burden on petitioners to establish hours, rates, and expenses; line-by-line not required)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (counsel should exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours)
- Beck v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (attorneys may not collect fees beyond the amount awarded under §15(e)(3))