In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: September 15, 2022

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

KARLA KNOX, *

*

Petitioner, * No. 20-0067V

* Special Master Oler

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

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

Lynn C. Schlie, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On January 22, 2020, Karla Knox (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant 

to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). 

Petitioner alleged that she suffered from transverse myelitis as a result of the influenza vaccination 

she received on March 13, 2018. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On December 28, 2021, the parties filed 

a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding compensation on the same 

day. (ECF No. 40).

On March 8, 2022, Petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF 

No. 45) (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of 

$28,192.24, representing $27,554.00 in attorneys’ fees and $638.24 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. 

at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that she has personally incurred costs 

1 The undersigned intends to post this Ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the Ruling 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, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 

the undersigned is required to 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 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion 

of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

totaling $25.15 related to this litigation. Id. Respondent responded to the motion on March 9, 2022, 

stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs are met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2 (ECF No. 47). Petitioner did not file a reply 

thereafter.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act allows for the Special Master to award “reasonable 

attorneys' fees, and other costs.” § 300aa–15(e)(1)(A)–(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of 

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act, or, 

even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible so long as the Special Master finds that the petition 

was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant 

to a stipulation, she is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

It is “well within the special master's discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees. 

Saxton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines 

v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant 

the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys' fees and 

costs.”). Applications for attorneys' fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing 

records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin 

v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the 

relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The “prevailing market rate” 

is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable 

skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. The petitioner bears the burden of providing 

adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

a. Reasonable Hourly Rates

The undersigned has reviewed the rates requested by Petitioner for the work of her counsel 

at Conway, Homer, P.C. (the billing records indicate that the majority of attorney work was 

performed by Ms. Lauren Faga, with supporting work from Mr. Ronald Homer, Mr. Patrick Kelly, 

Ms. Meredith Daniels, Ms. Christina Ciampolillo, and Mr. Joseph Pepper). The rates requested for 

these are attorneys are consistent with what they have previously been awarded for their Vaccine 

Program work, and the undersigned finds them to be reasonable herein.

b. Reasonable Hours Expended

Attorneys' fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are 

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well-established that billing for 
3

administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States, 

18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-1616V, 2018 WL 

2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).

Upon review, the undersigned finds the majority of the hours billed to be reasonable.

However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for review of status reports 

prepared by other attorneys. The undersigned notes 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. 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 the 

undersigned 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 & Human Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 

WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). A reduction of $463.50 shall 

be made to address this issue.

c. Attorneys’ Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable. 

Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests 

a total of $638.24 in attorneys’ costs. Fees App. at 31-32. This amount is comprised of acquiring 

medical records, the Court’s filing fee, and postage. Petitioner has provided adequate 

documentation supporting these costs and they are reasonable in the undersigned’s experience.

d. Petitioner’s Costs

Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that she has personally incurred 

costs totaling $25.15. This cost is for postage and has been supported by the necessary 

documentation and shall be fully reimbursed.

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned has 

reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds that Petitioner’s request for fees and 

costs, other than the reductions delineated above, is reasonable. The undersigned finds that it is 

reasonable to compensate Petitioner and her counsel as follows:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $27,554.00

(Reduction to Fees) - ($463.50)

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $27,090.50

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $638.24

(Reduction to Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $638.24
4

Total Fees & Costs Awarded $27,728.74

Petitioner’s Costs $25.15

Total Amount Awarded $27,753.89

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

1) a lump sum in the amount of $27,728.74, representing reimbursement for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and 

Petitioner’s counsel of record, Mr. Ronald Homer; and

2) a lump sum in the amount of $25.15, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s 

costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

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

court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler

 Katherine E. Oler

Special Master

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

Vaccine Rule 11(a).