Zuidema, Jr. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-983
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Petitioner John A. Zuidema, Jr. alleged influenza and Tdap vaccines caused Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and obtained compensation via a stipulation resolving entitlement.
- After the merits decision, Zuidema sought attorneys’ fees of $25,177.50 and costs of $1,516.55 (total $26,694.05).
- The Secretary did not raise specific objections to rates or hours but proposed a lower “reasonable range” ($18,000–$22,000) based on ten comparable GBS/CIDP cases; the Secretary initially failed to explain comparability.
- The special master ordered the Secretary to justify the comparators; after several filings the Secretary provided case details showing the cited matters were relatively straightforward, party-stipulated settlements without experts or life-care plans.
- The special master applied the lodestar method (hours × reasonable rate), found petitioner’s counsel’s hourly rates and billed hours reasonable, and approved all documented costs.
- The special master awarded the full requested amount: $26,694.05, to be paid to petitioner and petitioner’s attorney as a lump sum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees/costs after successful Vaccine Program claim | Zuidema: prevailing petitioner entitled to reasonable fees/costs under Vaccine Act | Secretary did not dispute entitlement but contested reasonableness range | Awarded: petitioner entitled and awarded full requested amount |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Zuidema: counsel’s requested rates ($300/2015, $324/2016) are reasonable and within McCulloch matrix | Secretary did not specifically challenge rates | Held: rates accepted as reasonable |
| Reasonableness of billed hours | Zuidema: hours reasonable and supported; Secretary raised no specific hour-by-hour objections | Secretary suggested lower overall range based on comparable cases but provided no specific hour objections initially | Held: billed hours reviewed and found reasonable; no reductions made |
| Usefulness of Secretary’s comparators to reduce award | Zuidema: Secretary’s comparators insufficiently explained and varied widely; unopposed application should stand | Secretary: cited ten supposedly similarly-postured GBS/CIDP cases suggesting lower awards | Held: comparators not persuasive to reduce fee; one cited case (Jones) similar but only slightly lower; full fee awarded; admonished that disputed stance likely increased litigation costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (approves lodestar framework for Vaccine Act fee awards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (fee calculation by hours reasonably expended times a reasonable hourly rate)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fees must exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours)
- SUFI Network Servs. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 140 (Fed. Cl. 2013) (discussion of when an unopposed fee application may be treated as uncontested)