Stolowski v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
12-635
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Petitioner Laura M. Stolowski filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging rheumatologic and immunologic injuries (including rheumatoid arthritis) from an October 7, 2009 influenza vaccination; petition filed September 26, 2012.
- The parties stipulated to compensation, and Special Master Millman issued a decision awarding damages on March 21, 2016.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on October 27, 2016, seeking $47,406.00 in attorneys’ fees, $7,502.06 in attorneys’ costs, and $101.25 in personal costs (total $55,009.31).
- Respondent conceded entitlement but argued a reasonable total would be roughly $40,000–$50,000 based on comparable awards and her experience.
- The special master reviewed the billing records, declined to adopt respondent’s range as dispositive, and found the requested amount reasonable given counsel’s work and expedited settlement.
- The special master awarded $54,908.06 (payable jointly to petitioner and RawlsMcNelis, P.C.) for attorneys’ fees and costs, and $101.25 to petitioner for personal costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after obtaining compensation | Entitled to fees and costs under Vaccine Act; requested $55,009.31 | Respondent agreed statutory requirements met; did not dispute entitlement | Award granted; statutory entitlement acknowledged |
| Whether the requested amount is reasonable | Requested full $55,009.31 based on submitted billing and work performed | Proposed a rough reasonable range of $40,000–$50,000 based on experience and comparable cases | Special master found petitioner’s requested total reasonable and awarded $54,908.06 plus $101.25 to petitioner |
| Use of comparable case awards to limit fees | Implicitly argued billing justifies requested amount | Argued similar prior awards support lower figure | Special master rejected relying solely on procedural similarity; emphasized case-specific review |
| Allocation and form of payment | Sought combined award for fees, costs, and reimbursement to petitioner | No dispute on payee form raised beyond respondent’s range | Award directed as checks: $54,908.06 jointly to petitioner and RawlsMcNelis, P.C.; $101.25 to petitioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (Vaccine Act fee-shifting requirement applies when petition results in an award of compensation)
- Perreira v. Secretary of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (special masters have wide discretion in determining reasonable fees)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Secretary of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (1993) (special masters may rely on prior experience reviewing fee applications)