Lonergan v. HHS - other (1993)

An unnamed petitioner pursued a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The specific vaccine and alleged injury are not described in the available case document, which concerns only a dispute over the reasonableness of the special master's attorneys' fee award.

On September 23, 1992, Chief Special Master Golkiewicz issued a fee decision under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e), awarding petitioners their costs and attorneys' fees but declining to compensate the work at a partner's hourly rate. The special master explained his reasoning in the following passage: "it is clear from the proceedings in this case that the services of a highly paid partner were not required.

In essence, the services consisted of compiling documentation and seeking a medical expert's opinion. These services are more than adequately performed by an associate.

Accordingly, they will be compensated as such." Petitioners filed a motion for review. Notably, they explicitly stated that their motion was "not about money" and did not challenge the dollar amount of the award.

Instead, they argued that the special master's statement amounted to an improper direction about how lawyers should staff their Vaccine Act cases — specifically, an instruction that certain work must be assigned to associates rather than partners. Judge Tidwell denied the motion on January 27, 1993.

The court held that the special master's determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and that the special master was explaining his reasoning for the fee calculation, not issuing a directive about law firm staffing decisions. More fundamentally, because petitioners expressly declined to challenge the amount of the award, the quoted statement was not a finding of fact on which the fee determination rested and therefore fell outside the court's jurisdiction to review under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B).

The court also noted, with evident displeasure, that petitioners' personal attack on the special master's credentials — characterizing his background as inhibiting his ability to understand attorneys' fee issues — was "highly inappropriate, contentious, and unpersuasive." The special master's September 23, 1992, fee decision was affirmed.