In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-204V 

Filed: February 22, 2017 

Not for Publication 

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

ROSEMARY ST. GEORGE, * 

 * 

Petitioner, * 

 * 

 v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* 

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

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

Claudia B. Gangi, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On March 2, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

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

receipt of the influenza vaccine on January 16, 2013 caused her to develop brachial neuritis. On 

August 30, 2016, the undersigned issued a decision awarding damages pursuant to the parties’ 

stipulation.

On February 6, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, requesting 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $28,883.70, attorneys’ costs in the amount of $7,687.16, and 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 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

personal costs in the amount of $36.28 for a total request of $36,607.14. 

 

On February 21, 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 [undersigned] 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 that petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs request is reasonable. Therefore, the 

undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Accordingly, the 

court awards $36,607.14, 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 

$36,607.14. 

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: February 22, 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.