Turner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 08-864

Petitioner Lisa Turner filed a Vaccine Act petition in 2008 alleging multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis, and related injuries after a December 20, 2005 Hepatitis B vaccination.
A fact hearing occurred in 2011; an entitlement hearing was held in February 2015; interim fees of $165,000 were awarded in September 2015; a Ruling on Entitlement issued April 18, 2016.
Parties negotiated damages (life care plan, vocational/economic analysis) and ultimately stipulated to an award; a decision awarding compensation was entered April 25, 2017.
On June 29, 2017, petitioner moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $90,140.43 (fees $76,015.50; costs $14,124.93); petitioner reported no out-of-pocket costs.
Respondent declined to oppose entitlement to fees but noted respondent’s limited role and asked the special master to exercise discretion in determining a reasonable award.
The special master reviewed billing records, found the request reasonable, and granted the full requested amount to be paid jointly to petitioner and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act	Turner sought $76,015.50 (fees) and $14,124.93 (costs) as reasonable and supported by billing records	Respondent acknowledged statutory entitlement requirements were met and deferred to the special master’s discretion on reasonableness	Granted: the special master awarded the full $90,140.43 requested
Whether any reductions to hours or rates were warranted	Billing records and prior interim award support the requested amounts	Respondent did not argue reductions; urged court to determine a reasonable amount	Denied: no reductions made; request deemed reasonable
Form of payment and scope of award	Requested lump-sum reimbursement covering all legal expenses and advanced costs	Respondent did not contest form; noted statutory limits on additional collection	Awarded as a lump sum payable jointly to petitioner and counsel; award covers all legal expenses and prevents additional collection
Procedural role of respondent in fee adjudication	Turner proceeded under Vaccine Act and General Order #9 compliance	Respondent asserted fee resolution is for the special master and not expressly for respondent	Special master exercised discretion; resolved fees without respondent taking a substantive adversarial position

Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (attorney fee collection limitations under the Vaccine Act)