Bruce Thomas Savin v. HHS - other (2008)

Bruce Thomas Savin, by his mother, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on July 29, 1999, alleging adverse reactions from vaccinations received on November 10, 1994. Due to an inability to find an expert to support causation, the petitioners requested judgment on the existing record.

On July 3, 2007, the Special Master issued a decision denying compensation, with judgment entered on August 13, 2007. Petitioners elected to file a civil action on August 14, 2007.

Petitioners subsequently filed an untimely motion for enlargement of time to file for attorneys' fees and costs, which was granted by the Special Master. On February 20, 2008, petitioners filed their motion for attorneys' fees and costs, seeking $36,178.98.

On April 22, 2008, the Special Master awarded $30,691.48, reducing the requested amount by $5,487.50. The Special Master rejected or reduced ten billing entries for fees, even though they were not opposed by the respondent.

These included entries for work done over two weeks, duplicated entries, entries for reviewing a notice of appearance and filing a fee application, an entry that lumped several tasks, an entry for reviewing payment of a filing fee, and an entry for a meeting on medical literature. The Special Master also sustained objections by the respondent and reduced claimed costs, particularly for services provided by Dr.

Mark A. Greenspan.

Petitioners filed a motion for review on May 22, 2008, arguing that the Special Master acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reducing unchallenged fee items and costs without further evidence. Respondent filed a memorandum on June 23, 2008, urging the court to sustain the Special Master's findings.

The court heard oral argument on August 28, 2008. The court reviewed the Special Master's decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard, affirming that special masters have an independent responsibility to assess the reasonableness of fees and costs, even if not objected to by the respondent.

The court found that the Special Master had ample basis for her findings, particularly due to deficiencies in petitioners' billing records, which lacked specificity, lumped together various activities, and in some instances were not contemporaneous. The court noted that petitioners' counsel had a history of fee reductions in at least fourteen prior cases.

The court denied the motion for review and affirmed the Special Master's decision. The opinion was to be unsealed after October 8, 2008, unless protected materials were identified for redaction.