## Facts

- West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. operated a hospital near the Pennsylvania border and treated Pennsylvania Medicaid recipients.
- The hospital sued Pennsylvania officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Pennsylvania’s Medicaid reimbursement rates were unlawfully low.
- The hospital prevailed on the merits in federal district court.
- The district court awarded attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and included substantial charges for an accounting firm and physician experts retained to assist case preparation and provide testimony.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the merits judgment but held expert compensation was recoverable only at the limited statutory amounts permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821(b).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit conflict over whether § 1988 permits recovery of expert fees beyond the statutory witness-fee cap.

## Issues

1. Whether “a reasonable attorney’s fee” in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 authorizes shifting expert witness fees beyond the limits specified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821(b).
2. Whether federal courts may treat expert services (testimonial or consultative) as part of attorney’s fees absent explicit statutory authorization.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit.
- The Court held that § 1988 does not authorize shifting expert witness fees beyond the capped amounts allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b).
- The Court concluded that §§ 1920 and 1821(b) define the full extent of a federal court’s authority to shift expert fees unless Congress expressly provides otherwise.
- The Court rejected arguments that legislative history or the remedial aims of civil rights statutes could expand the unambiguous text of “attorney’s fee.”
- The Court treated the limitation as applying to expert services generally, not only to experts who testify.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may shift only those litigation costs authorized by statute; for expert witness compensation, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821(b) control absent explicit contrary authorization.
- The term “attorney’s fee” in § 1988 refers to compensation for legal services and does not, by itself, include expert fees.
- Courts will not infer a repeal or enlargement of the statutory cost limits from general fee-shifting language that does not specifically mention expert witness fees.
- Legislative history cannot expand a statute’s unambiguous operative text.

## Conclusion

The Court held that prevailing parties in § 1983 actions may not recover expert witness fees under § 1988 beyond the capped witness fees authorized by §§ 1920 and 1821(b) unless Congress clearly authorizes broader recovery.


W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83 (1991)