R.A. v. HHS - MMR, serious injuries (2020)

On September 26, 2014, Anne Abbott, on behalf of her minor child R.A., filed a petition alleging that R.A. suffered serious injuries after receiving a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination. The specific nature of R.A.'s injuries and the theory of causation remain pending as the parties explore settlement.

This decision addresses an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs related to the expert witness services of Dr. David Siegler, a pediatric neurologist.

Petitioner sought compensation for Dr. Siegler's services, totaling $37,900, which included an initial $12,150 and an additional $25,750 for a supplemental report.

The Special Master initially deferred ruling on these costs, suggesting they be determined after an entitlement hearing. However, due to ongoing settlement efforts and the potential for a hearing to be cancelled, the Special Master later allowed an interim award.

The Special Master determined a reasonable hourly rate for Dr. Siegler was $400, reducing his requested rates of $450 and $500.

Additionally, the Special Master reduced the compensable hours by ten percent due to vague billing entries, such as unspecified literature review, and charges for tasks like collecting references that could be delegated to lower-paid staff. Petitioner sought review of the Special Master's decision regarding both the hourly rate and the reduction in compensable hours.

The Court of Federal Claims sustained the ten percent reduction in compensable hours, finding the Special Master's reasoning regarding vague billing and delegable tasks to be a permissible exercise of discretion. However, the court remanded the issue of the hourly rate back to the Special Master for further explanation, finding that the Special Master's reliance on a prior case (Zumwalt) was not sufficiently detailed, particularly concerning Dr.

Siegler's role as a treating physician in that case versus an expert witness in the current case. The court noted that the Special Master did not adequately explain why he considered the rate set in Zumwalt applicable here, especially given the distinction in Dr.

Siegler's role. The overall outcome of the entitlement claim remains pending.

Petitioner was represented by Andrew D. Downing, and respondent was represented by Ida Nassar, Joseph H.

Hunt, C. Salvatore D’Alessio, Catharine E.

Reeves, and Gabrielle M. Fielding.

The opinion was issued by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith.