Feedback

R V Secretary Of Health And Human Services

  In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 23-0730V


 T.R.,
                                                             Chief Special Master Corcoran
                         Petitioner,
 v.                                                          Filed: June 20, 2025


 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES,

                        Respondent.


Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                       DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

       On May 17, 2023, T.R. filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.1 (the “Vaccine Act”).
Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 21, 2021,
he suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition
at 1. On October 29, 2024, I issued a decision awarding damages following briefing by
the parties. ECF No. 39.

       Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $20,071.04 (representing $19,590.60 for attorney’s fees and $480.44 attorney costs).
Petitioner Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed May 14, 2025, ECF No. 45. In accordance



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.
with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a signed statement indicating that she incurred
no out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 46. Respondent has not filed a response.

      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.
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.

                                            2
        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. 45
at 10-13.2 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. 45 at 11 (entry
dated 7/30/24). 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 $238.00.

                                        ATTORNEY COSTS

      Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but
expenses of $10.00 for copying and $24.85 for postage. ECF No. 45 at 15-24. I will
nevertheless allow reimbursement of these unsubstantiated costs.


                                                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 $19,833.04 (representing $19,352.60 for
attorney’s fees and $480.44 attorney 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.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                                         s/Brian H. Corcoran
                                                         Brian H. Corcoran
                                                         Chief Special Master

2 These entries are dated as follows: 6/17/24, 7/19/24, 8/28/24, and 11/27/24.


3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
                                                    3