In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 14-916V 

(Not to be Published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

MARGARET HAWORTH, * 

 * Special Master Corcoran 

Petitioner, * 

* Dated: April 19, 2016 

v. * 

 * Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Forum Rate; 

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Adriana Teitel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On September 29, 2014, Margaret Haworth filed a petition seeking compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 In the petition, Ms. 

Haworth alleged she developed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and acute disseminated 

encephalomyelitis as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine. The case was settled 

approximately a year later, and I issued a decision awarding Petitioner compensation on October 

15, 2015. ECF No. 23. 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As 

provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of 

certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within 

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or 

financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure 

of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole 

decision will be available to the public. Id. 

2

 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the 

Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act.
2

On February 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion requesting an award of attorney’s fees in 

the amount of $26,469.90, and costs in the amount of $1,195.34, for a total amount of $27,665.24.

ECF No. 27. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner’s counsel also represented that 

Petitioner separately incurred $135.33 in reimbursable costs in proceeding with this petition. ECF 

No. 28.

On March 14, 2016, Respondent filed a document reacting to Petitioner’s Motion. ECF 

No. 30. Respondent asserts that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 contemplates any 

role for Respondent in the resolution of a request by a Petitioner for an award of attorney’s fees

and costs.” Id. at 2. Respondent added that she “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2, n.2. However, she maintained that a 

reasonable amount for fees and costs in the present case would fall between $20,000 and $25,000, 

providing no substantiation for this proposed range. Id. 

On March 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a reply. ECF No. 31. Petitioner argued that 

Respondent’s reference to an unfiled “survey” for a proposed range of fees is not appropriate. Id. 

at 4. Petitioner also points to other special master decisions that reject blanket objections and vague 

responses by Respondent. Id. at 6.3

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing 

parties. Section 15(e). I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s initial request 

and, based on my discretion and Vaccine Program experience, find no cause to reduce the 

requested hours or rates. The attorneys and paralegals in this matter request hourly rates consistent 

with those proposed in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 

5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). Therefore, I find the requested rates reasonable. 

Furthermore, Petitioner’s request for an additional fee of $684.504 for preparation of the reply is 

also reasonable. 

As noted above, Petitioner also requests an award of costs in the amount of $1,195.34. ECF 

No. 27. Respondent does not object to these costs as unreasonable, and upon review of the record 

I find that they are reasonable. 

Accordingly, based on the reasonableness of Petitioner’s request, I hereby GRANT 

Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $28,348.745

 as a lump sum 

 

3

 Petitioner requested additional attorney’s fees in the amount of $684.50 for preparing the reply. ECF No. 32. She 

did not, however, provide specific billing entries describing how this time was expended. 

4

 Petitioner’s counsel was awarded less money for a very similar reply subsequently filed in a different case. In the 

future, I will not grant more than $300 for similar replies filed in other cases. 

5

 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by 

the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) 
3

in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Ronald 

Homer. I also award a total of $135.33 as a lump sum in the form of a check payable solely 

to Petitioner in accordance with her General Order No. 9 submission.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.6

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

Special Master 

 

prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded 

herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the Parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing 

the right to seek review.