Strand v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
20-0365V
Fed. Cl.Mar 7, 2024Background
- Derek Strand filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a shoulder injury (SIRVA) due to a flu vaccine administered on November 12, 2018.
- The court previously determined Strand was entitled to compensation for the SIRVA injury.
- Strand subsequently filed a motion requesting $36,113.50 for attorney’s fees, costs, and out-of-pocket expenses.
- The respondent (Health & Human Services) did not challenge the entitlement to fees/costs but left the amount to the special master’s discretion.
- The special master reviewed the fees, rates claimed, hours billed, and supporting documentation, and made certain reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rate for law clerks | Claimed a higher rate for law clerks than typical student rates | No specific objection, deferred to court's discretion | Reduced hourly rate for law clerks to $150/hour |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Claimed time spent on briefing and damages was reasonable | Did not object to billed hours or amounts | Found the hours billed for briefing to be reasonable |
| Documentation of attorney & petitioner costs | Sought reimbursement for all claimed expenses, including some without full documentation | No specific objection to claimed costs | Disallowed undocumented costs: $21.57 postage, $0.10 copying, $2 out-of-pocket |
| Total attorney's fees and costs awarded | Requested $36,113.50 in total compensation | Did not object to total, deferred to court | Awarded a reduced sum of $36,041.00 to petitioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (setting forth standards for fee requests under the Vaccine Act)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (recognizing special master’s discretion to reduce excessive or unnecessary hours)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (attorney must exclude excessive or unnecessary hours from submissions)
- Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (special master may reduce fees sua sponte)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (line-by-line analysis not required for fee reductions)
- Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (fee applicant bears burden of proof for hours, rates, and costs)