Kenneth M. Anderson, Jr. v. HHS - other (1993)

On August 20, 1990, petitioner, as legal representative for her son Kenneth M. Anderson, Jr., filed a request for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The respondent conceded that petitioner was entitled to compensation. Special Master Elizabeth E.

Wright held an evidentiary hearing on damages on April 2, 1991. Petitioner presented testimony from an expert economist and a life care planner.

On February 17, 1993, Special Master Wright awarded petitioner compensation in the form of a lump sum payment plus an annuity. This decision addresses petitioner's motion for review of the Special Master's award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Petitioner sought reimbursement of $28,138.73 for attorneys' fees and costs, but Special Master Wright allowed $23,505.56. The Special Master reduced the requested attorney time by 17.05 hours and the economist's time by 23.30 hours.

The Special Master also denied a rate differential for the life planner and economist, allowing $100 per hour for the life planner and $95 per hour for the economist for all work. Petitioner objected, arguing the Special Master's decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on disagreement with litigation strategy, and failed to recognize private practice realities.

The respondent urged affirmation of the Special Master's decision. The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the Special Master's decision under an abuse of discretion standard.

The court found Special Master Wright's decision to be well-reasoned and easily understandable, affirming her reductions in attorney time for excessive billing on the fee application, redundant work reviewing the order, and excessive time conferring with the economist. The court also affirmed the reduction in the economist's hours due to his minimal participation in the case and the denial of rate differentials for experts due to lack of justification.

The court rejected petitioner's arguments that the decision was based on disapproval of litigation strategy or unrealistic private practice considerations, citing prior case law. The court concluded that the Special Master's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and affirmed the award of $23,505.56 in attorneys' fees and costs.