Stites v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-118
| Fed. Cl. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Petitioner Nancy Stites filed a Vaccine Act petition on January 27, 2016, alleging a shoulder injury (SIRVA) from a September 30, 2013 influenza vaccination.
- The parties filed a stipulation and the special master awarded compensation on March 30, 2017.
- On May 12, 2017, Stites moved for attorneys’ fees and costs seeking $13,081.50 in fees and $1,144.51 in costs (total $14,226.01).
- Respondent did not oppose entitlement and asked the special master to exercise discretion to determine a reasonable award.
- The special master applied the lodestar method, reviewed hourly rates, contemporaneous billing, and submitted receipts, and found the requested rates, hours, and costs reasonable.
- The special master awarded the full requested amount of $14,226.01 as a lump sum, payable jointly to petitioner and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees and costs | Fees and costs are recoverable where claim was filed in good faith and had a reasonable basis; compensation was awarded by stipulation | Respondent agreed statutory requirements were met and left amount to the special master’s discretion | Award appropriate; fees and costs granted in full |
| Reasonable hourly rates | Proposed rates of $255 (2015), $275 (2016), $300 (2017) for attorney; $125 for paralegals — within published Program ranges | No objection to requested rates | Rates found reasonable and approved |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | 40.2 attorney hours and 19.2 paralegal hours, supported by contemporaneous billing entries | No objection to hours | Hours found reasonable; full hours awarded |
| Reasonableness of costs | $1,144.51 for filing fee and medical records; receipts submitted | 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.) (approving lodestar method for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir.) (special masters may rely on prior experience to reduce fees/hours)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (lodestar: hours reasonably expended × reasonable hourly rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (fee awards should exclude excessive or redundant hours)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (Ct. Cl.) (special masters have wide discretion in fee awards)
- Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.) (attorney cannot charge client additional fees beyond awarded amount)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (Ct. Cl.) (special master need not perform line-by-line fee review)