# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: September 15 , 202 2

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

KARLA KNOX

, *

* Petitioner, * No. 20

- 0067 V

* 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 P etitioner. Lynn C. Schlie , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 22, 2020

, Karla Knox (“ P etitioner”) 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 vaccinati on

s he 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, P etitioner filed an application for final attor neys ’ fees and costs. ( ECF

No. 45 ) (“Fees App.”). Petiti oner requests total attorneys ’ fees and c osts in the amount of $ 28,192.24

, represen ting $ 27,554.00 in attorneys ’ fees and $ 638.24 in attorney s ’ costs

. Fees App.

at 2

. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that s he has personally incurred costs

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

means the R uling 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 iden tified 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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 Sta tes 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, 10 0 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 compens ation 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, s he 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 perfo rmed 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 h er 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 E xpended

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 for3

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 & Huma n 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 concer ning 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 (Fe d. Cl. 1992). Petitione r requests
a total of $ 638.24 in attorneys ’ cost s

. Fees App. at 3 1

- 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 r easonable 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 P etitione r’s request for fees an d

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

reasonable to compensate P etitioner and h er 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 $ 638.244

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 P etitioner and

P etitioner’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 Petiti oner.

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).