Swanson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-558
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome caused by a December 20, 2012 influenza vaccination; petition filed June 1, 2015.
- The parties stipulated to compensation, and Special Master Millman issued a decision awarding damages on September 13, 2016.
- Petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs on February 8, 2017, requesting $27,953.50 in fees and $3,090.82 in costs (total $31,044.32).
- Respondent did not contest entitlement to fees and costs, but asked the Special Master to exercise discretion to determine a reasonable amount.
- The Special Master reviewed counsel’s billing records, found the request reasonable based on experience and submitted records, and granted the full requested amount.
- The award of $31,044.32 is to be paid jointly to petitioner and counsel, Conway, Homer, P.C.; judgment to be entered absent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act | Petitioner sought fees and costs following a successful award of compensation. | Respondent agreed statutory requirements were met and did not oppose an award; asked Special Master to determine a reasonable amount. | Fees and costs are recoverable; respondent conceded entitlement and Special Master proceeded to amount determination. |
| Reasonableness of requested amount ($31,044.32) | Counsel submitted billing records and argued the requested fees and costs were reasonable. | Respondent reserved discretion to challenge amount but did not object to records; recommended Special Master exercise discretion. | Special Master reviewed records, found the requested amount reasonable, and awarded the full $31,044.32. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (Vaccine Act fee-shifting provision requires award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs when statutory conditions are met)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29 (1992) (special masters have broad discretion in determining reasonable fees)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (appellate affirmation of fee-review standard)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special masters may rely on prior experience in reviewing fee applications)