ORIGINAL

3n tlje Winitth States? Court of Jfeberal Claim*

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 08-743V r- . . r- p. Filed: January 12, 2016 l~ I L t U

**************** UNPUBLISHED JAN 11 2016

RICHARD WILLIAMS-O'BANION, * 0SM

Special Master Hamilton-^ftjSgffiOF,

Petitioner,

SECRETARY OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

* Former Attorneys' Fees and Costs;

* Reasonable Amount Requested to

* which Respondent Does Not Object.

Respondent. * ****************

Richard Williams-O'Banion, Pro se.

Lara A. Englund, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

DECISION1

On October 20, 2008, Richard Williams-O'Banion ("Petitioner") filed a petition pursuant

to theNational Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that an influenza

("flu") vaccine administered on October 28, 2005, caused him to suffer from neurological

injuries. Petition, dated October 17, 2008, at 1.

Petitioner was represented by counsel, Mr. Ronald C. Homer, when he initially filed his

petition. See generally Petition. Mr. Homer represented Petitioner for several months, before he

filed a Motion to Withdraw on July 31, 2009. Motion, dated July 31, 2009. The Motion was

1Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned's action in this case,

the undersigned intends to post this decision on the website ofthe United States Court of Federal

Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116

Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by

Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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).

2The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter Vaccine Act or the Act). Hereafter, individual section

references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa ofthe Act.
granted on September 7, 2010. Order, dated September 7, 2010. Petitioner did notretain

another attorney and proceeded Prose throughout the remaining duration of his case.

On July25, 2014, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing this case for insufficient

proofof causation. Decision, datedJuly 25, 2014. Judgment on the dismissal decision was

entered on August29, 2014. Judgment, dated August 29, 2014. On January 5, 2015, Mr. Homer

filed a Motion for Leave to file an application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ("Motion for

Leave"). Motion, dated January 5, 2015. The Motion for Leave was necessary because,

according to Mr. Homer, Petitioner refused to allow Mr. Homer to "becomethe attorney of

record" for the purpose of filing a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Motion for Leave, at 3.

On January 26, 2015, Respondent filed her Response to Petitioner's Motion for Leave

("Respondent's Response"), arguing that Mr. Homer did not have standing to file hismotion for

attorneys' fees and costs, and that there was no reasonable basis for filing the petition.

Respondent's Response, at 2-3. Finally, on February 18, 2015, Mr. Homer filed his Reply to

Respondent's Response ("Former Counsel's Reply"). On October 29, 2015, the undersigned

issued an Order, in which she determined that Petitioner's former counsel has standing to file for

attorneys' fees and costs, and she granted his Motion for Leave. Order, dated October29, 2015.

On November 23, 2015, in compliance with General Order #9, the undersigned granted

Petitioner"an opportunity to request reimbursement for any documented claim-related costs he

personally incurred during the period he wasrepresented by Mr. Homer." Order, dated

November 23, 2015. The undersigned stated that "[a]ny requests for costs submitted after

[Wednesday, December 16, 2015] will not be considered for reimbursement." Id. To date, the

Court has received no correspondence from Petitioner and no requests for reimbursement.

After the undersigned granted Petitioner's former counsel's Motion for Leave,

Respondent filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys' Fees and Costs, in which

Petitioner's former counsel and Respondent agree to the amount of fees and costs to be awarded

to Mr. Homer. Stipulation, dated November 19, 2015. Pursuant to their Stipulation, Petitioner's

former counsel and Respondent have agreed to an award of $12,000.00 in attorneys' fees and

costs. As noted above, Petitioner was given additional time to request reimbursement for out-ofpocket litigation costs in pursuit of his claim; however, he did not submit a request for

reimbursement.

The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and

appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $12,000.00, in the

form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner's former counsel, Ronald

C. Homer, at Conway Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C, 16 Shawmut Street, Boston, MA 02116.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to provide a copy ofthis Decision to Mr. Ronald

Homer, 16 Shawmut Street, Boston, MA 02116.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of

the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms ofthe parties'

stipulation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master

3Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties' joint filing of

notice renouncing the right to seek review.