Field V Secretary Of Health And Human Services
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1958V
HARLAN FIELD,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 13, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On December 23, 2020, Harlan Field filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered to him on
October 17, 2019. Petition at 1. On June 3, 2024, I issued a decision finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation and awarding damages, following briefing and Expedited
Motions Day by the parties. ECF No. 53.
1Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of
2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $26,565.93 (representing $25,468.90 for attorney’s fees, $1,044.31 for attorney costs,
and $52.72 for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket litigation costs). Petitioner Application for
Attorneys’ Fees, filed Feb. 25, 2025, ECF No. 60. In accordance with General Order No.
9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that he incurred $52.72 in out-of-pocket
expenses. ECF No. 61.
Respondent reacted to the motion on February 26, 2025, representing that he is
satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met
in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion.
Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 62. Petitioner filed no reply.
Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in
connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the
reason set forth below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section
15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific
billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the
service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee
requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to
reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for
the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request
sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner
notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed.
Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of
petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl.
Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1.
2
Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours
that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and
consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted.
Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding
entitlement and damages. See Petitioner’s Motion for an Entitlement Ruling on the
Record and Memorandum in Support of Damages, Sept. 14, 2023, ECF No. 45;
Memorandum in Support of Damages, filed June 6, 2023, ECF No. 46; Petitioner’s Reply
to Respondent’s Damages Brief, filed May 1, 2024, ECF No. 52; Petitioner’s Minute Entry,
dated May 31, 2024 (for May 31, 2024 expedited hearing). Petitioner’s counsel expended
approximately 9.5 hours drafting the entitlement and damages brief and 4.6 hours drafting
the responsive entitlement and damages brief, for a combined total of 14.1 hours. ECF
No. 60 at 18-19. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s
fees requested.
However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for the review
of status reports and other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 79
at 7, 13, 18-21.3 I note that it is common practice for Conway, Homer, P.C. to have several
attorneys assist over the course of a case. In some instances, such as when preparing
substantive documents like the petition, briefs, and settlement demands, it is reasonable
to have another set of eyes review that document. See, e.g., ECF No. 60 at 17 (entry
dated 5/18/23). However, it is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review
routine filings, such as status reports and motions for enlargement of time, when those
filings were prepared (and billed for) by another attorney. This is not the first time I or
other special masters have noted this particular issue concerning Conway, Homer, P.C.
billing practices. See, e.g., Manetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020
WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). I will not
award attorney’s fees for this redundant work. This results in a reduction of $326.50.
3 These entries are dated as follows: 1/11/21, 11/12/21, 6/30/23, 7/31/23, 10/30/24, 4/12/24, 6/5/24,
7/11/24, and 11/4/24.
3
ATTORNEY AND PETITIONER COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but
expenses of $10.00 for copying and $27.57 for postage. ECF No. 60 at 22-36; ECF No. .
I will nevertheless allow reimbursement of these unsubstantiated costs. And Respondent
offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. ECF No. 62.
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $26,239.43 (representing $25,142.40 for
attorney’s fees, $1,044.31 attorney costs, and $52.72 for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket
litigation costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA
account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review
(see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in
accordance with this Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
4