Abbott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedMarch 5, 2021
Docket14-907
StatusPublished

This text of Abbott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Abbott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abbott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2021).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* RK KK RK KK KK KK KR KR Rk Ke

ANNE ABBOTT, ** on behalf of her minor child, R.A., = * ** No. 14-907V Petitioner, ** Special Master Christian J. Moran Ed V. ** Filed: December 4, 2020 Ed SECRETARY OF HEALTH ** Attomeys’ fees and costs, interim AND HUMAN SERVICES, ** award, expert costs, remand Ed Respondent. **

* eK KK KK KK KK KK KR KR RK KF

Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner; Jennifer Reynaud, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

PUBLISHED DECISION ON REMAND AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ COSTS ON AN INTERIM BASIS!

The third decision awarding Ms. Abbott attorneys’ fees and costs stated that a reasonable hourly rate for one of Ms. Abbott’s expert witnesses, Dr. David Siegler, was $400.00. Dissatisfied with that result, Ms. Abbott filed a motion for review. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently determined that the May 14, 2020 decision did not adequately explain the finding of $400 per hour for Dr. Siegler and therefore remanded the May 14, 2020 decision for additional

' The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its website (http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7). This posting will make the decision available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. consideration on the hourly rate, but denied the motion for review on all other issues. Opinion and Order, filed Oct. 8, 2020, 2020 WL 5951151.

The undersigned has now re-examined the evidence Ms. Abbott put forward and taken into account the undersigned’s experience with attorneys’ fees and costs. The undersigned reinstates the finding that a reasonable hourly rate for Dr. Siegler’s work is $400 per hour, but with additional explanation.

Procedural History

Ms. Abbott alleges that the measles, mumps, and rubella (-MMR’”) vaccine her daughter, R.A., received on June 12, 2012, harmed R.A. Ms. Abbott is proceeding on two causes of action. Ms. Abbott alleges that the MMR vaccine was the cause-in-fact of R.A.’s injury, and that her claim meets the definition of a “Table claim” because R.A. developed encephalitis within 5-15 days of vaccination. Petition, filed Sept. 26, 2014, at 1-2; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(II)(B) (2015).

In late June 2015, Ms. Abbott filed an expert report and CV from Dr. Siegler. See exhibit 30, corrected copy filed June 29, 2015; exhibit 31, filed June 26, 2015. Ms. Abbott then sought retmbursement for the work Dr. Siegler performed through a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs filed less than one month after she filed his report. Pet’r’s First Mot. for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed July 1, 2015. Ms. Abbott requested $450 per hour as a reasonable hourly rate for work Dr. Siegler performed in 2015. See id. exhibit A at 41 [pdf 76]. The Secretary objected, proposing instead an hourly rate of $350. Resp’t’s Resp. First Fee Appl’n, filed Aug. 10, 2015, at 18-20. Ms. Abbott’s request for rermbursement of this expert cost was deferred. First Interim Fees Decision, 2016 WL 4151689, issued July 15, 2016.

The parties thereafter continued to develop their evidence, with Ms. Abbott filing a second report from Dr. Siegler. Although a hearing had been set for January 2017, Ms. Abbott requested that this hearing be deferred while she pursued a report from a second neurologist, Dr. Lawrence Steinman. Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Aug. 8, 2016.

To address Ms. Abbott’s Table claim, briefing was ordered. Order, issued May 16, 2017. Ms. Abbott’s motion for a decision on the record regarding her on- Table claim was denied, but she was permitted to continue pursuing that claim with the submission of more evidence. Ruling, 2018 WL 11227323 (Fed. Cl.

2 Spec. Mstr. July 9, 2018). To supplement her on-Table claim, Ms. Abbott filed expert reports from Dr. Steinman (exhibit 76) and Dr. Siegler (exhibit 80) on August 21, 2018.

Ms. Abbott filed a second motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis on October 22, 2018. An award for Dr. Siegler’s time was again deferred because he had not testified, and because an adjudication was expected as the parties were submitting briefs. Second Interim Fees Decision, 2019 WL 1856435, issued Mar. 19, 2019. On March 20, 2019, Ms. Abbott moved for reconsideration of the deferral of Dr. Siegler’s costs. Ms. Abbott then filed a motion for reimbursement of those costs on May 15, 2019.

After reviewing the parties’ entitlement briefs, the undersigned determined that a hearing was appropriate. Order, issued Aug. 20, 2019. In November 2019, the parties advised that the earliest mutually convenient date for a four-day hearing was in October 2020. Order, issued Nov. 21, 2019. On January 6, 2020, the undersigned referred the case to Special Master Oler for alternative dispute resolution. With guidance from Special Master Oler, the parties have agreed to explore resolution. Due to the extensive needs of R.A., however, the settlement efforts have proceeded over months. As a result, the October 2020 hearing was cancelled at the parties’ request. Order, issued Apr. 29, 2020.

In a Third Decision Awarding Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, issued May 14, 2020, the undersigned addressed Ms. Abbott’s March 19, 2019 motion for reconsideration and May 15, 2019 motion for reimbursement of Dr. Siegler’s costs. Although in the previous two decisions the undersigned had deferred any award to Dr. Siegler, the undersigned found that circumstances had changed. Specifically, the parties’ agreement to pursue an informal resolution with the assistance of Special Master Oler suggested, but did not guarantee, that a hearing would prove unnecessary. While a hearing during which Dr. Siegler would testify could assist in determining a reasonable hourly rate for his work, waiting for something that might never happen seemed unfair to Ms. Abbott. Accordingly, some award for Dr. Siegler’s time was now appropriate.

On the question of the reasonable amount of compensation for Dr. Siegler’s work, the Third Fees Decision set forth the standard approach in which “a reasonable hourly rate is multiplied by a reasonable number of hours.” Third Interim Fees Decision, 2020 WL 4198665, at *2, citing Chevalier v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-001 V, 2017 WL 490426, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 2017). The Court agreed with this methodology. Opinion and Order, 2020 WL 5951151, at *3-4.

For the second factor (the reasonable number of hours), the Third Fees Decision found that Dr. Siegler’s proposed number of hours should be reduced by 10 percent. The basis for this reduction was that Dr. Siegler’s invoice was vague in describing what work he performed, and that he charged a high hourly rate for work that could have been delegated to a person who charged a lower hourly rate. Upon review, the Court found this reduction “was a permissible exercise of the special master’s discretion.” Opinion and Order, 2020 WL 5951151, at *6.

However, as noted above, the Court did not accept the determination of Dr. Siegler’s hourly rate. The Third Fees Decision had noted that Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States
124 Fed. Cl. 69 (Federal Claims, 2015)
Giles Industries, Inc. v. United States
650 F.2d 274 (Court of Claims, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abbott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbott-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2021.