In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-555V

Filed: April 3, 2017

Not for Publication

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

JAY DUBELL, *

*

 Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

 *

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

Ronald C. Homer, Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On June 30, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that he 

developed a neurological demyelinating injury as a result of his receipt of the influenza vaccine on 

October 14, 2011. On November 2, 2016, the undersigned issued a damages decision pursuant to 

the parties’ stipulation, awarding petitioner $285,000.00 in compensation.

On March 15, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs requesting 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $28,861.27, attorneys’ costs in the amount of $10,233.66, and 

personal costs of $386.79, for a total request of $39,481.72. 

 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

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

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all 

decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or 

commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information 

whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is 

filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document=s 

disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned 

categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

Attorneys’ fees and costs decision; 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
2

On April 3, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion explaining that he is 

satisfied this case meets the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Resp. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends that the 

special master exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and 

costs.” Id. at 3.

Under the Vaccine Act, a special master or a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims 

shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for any petition that results in an award of 

compensation. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1); Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1893 (2013). 

The special master has “wide discretion in determining the reasonableness” of attorneys’ fees and 

costs. Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994); 

see also Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 F.3d 1517, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Vaccine 

program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee 

applications.”).

Based on her experience and review of the billing records submitted by petitioner, the 

undersigned finds petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs request reasonable. Accordingly, the 

undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and awards:

a. $39,094.93, representing attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a 

check made payable jointly to petitioner and Conway, Homer, P.C. in the amount of 

$39,094.93; and 

b. $386.79, representing petitioner’s costs. The award shall be in the form of a check 

made payable to petitioner for $386.79.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2017 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.