West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
Headline: Court limits fee awards in civil-rights cases by holding that the statute’s “reasonable attorney’s fee” does not include party‑hired expert consultant fees, blocking recovery of most expert costs from losing defendants.
Holding: The Court held that 42 U.S.C. §1988’s authorization of a “reasonable attorney’s fee” does not provide explicit statutory authority to shift either testimonial or nontestimonial expert fees beyond the narrow federal cost statutes.
- Prevailing civil‑rights winners cannot recover party‑hired expert consulting fees under the statute.
- Expert witnesses can only get the limited per‑day witness payment allowed by federal cost rules.
- Raises financial risk for public‑interest litigants and may discourage costly expert‑driven lawsuits.
Summary
Background
A West Virginia hospital that served many Pennsylvania Medicaid patients challenged Pennsylvania’s new reimbursement rates after losing in administrative proceedings. The hospital sued state officials under a federal civil‑rights statute, hired a national accounting firm and three doctors as experts, won at trial, and the District Court awarded attorney’s fees that included over $100,000 in expert fees the court found "essential." The Court of Appeals allowed only the modest per‑day witness payment under the federal cost rules and rejected the larger expert fees, and the hospital asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the phrase "a reasonable attorney’s fee" in the civil‑rights fee statute authorizes a court to order the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s expert fees. The majority relied on earlier decisions and on the federal cost statutes that separately list recoverable items. It concluded that Congress and courts have treated attorney fees and expert fees as distinct, and that the civil‑rights statute’s wording does not supply the explicit authority needed to go beyond the narrow cost provisions. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court’s disallowance of most expert fees, while noting testimonial witnesses remain eligible for the limited statutory witness fee.
Real world impact
The decision means prevailing parties in civil‑rights suits generally cannot shift large expert consulting bills to losing defendants under that attorney‑fee statute. Expert testimony appearing at trial remains subject to the limited per‑day witness payment set by federal cost rules. Because the ruling turns on statutory text, Congress or different statutes could change this result in other contexts.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Stevens and Marshall dissented, arguing the statute’s purpose and legislative history supported full recovery of expert costs to preserve access to court and that prior practice and the Court’s own earlier reasoning about paralegal costs favored allowing such awards.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?