Voeller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
20-1526V
| Fed. Cl. | May 3, 2024Background
- Sarah Voeller, on behalf of her minor child N.V., filed a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program after N.V. developed Guillain-Barré syndrome allegedly due to influenza and varicella vaccines.
- The Special Master previously ruled in favor of Voeller, awarding damages.
- Voeller then filed a motion seeking $77,308.57 in attorney's fees and costs, which included fees for current and prior counsel and related costs.
- The respondent (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services) agreed that an award was appropriate but deferred to the Special Master's discretion regarding the amount.
- The Special Master reviewed the fee petition, supporting documentation, and billing records, and applied deductions for non-attorney tasks billed at attorney rates, redundant work, and excessive hours spent on damages briefing.
- Ultimately, the court granted attorney’s fees and costs but reduced the total award to $72,956.07.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Requested rates for attorneys and paralegals are reasonable | No objection to rates | Rates found reasonable except for non-attorney tasks, reduced accordingly |
| Appropriateness of billing for tasks | Billed all work at attorney rate | No specific objection | Tasks suitable for paralegals reduced to paralegal rates |
| Hours billed on non-novel legal research | Work required for briefing damages was necessary | No objection, suggested review | Time spent on recycled boilerplate content reduced |
| Excessive hours for damages briefs | Hours reported were reasonable given dispute magnitude | No objection, left to court's discretion | Hours for damages briefing deemed excessive; total reduced by 20% |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (line between reasonable and excessive fees)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (court may reduce hours to a reasonable number)
- Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201 (discretion to reduce fees sua sponte)
- Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719 (no line-by-line analysis required for fee reduction)
- Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482 (burden on petitioner to justify fees and costs)