In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: February 9, 2022)

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

JOHN SILVA, * UNPUBLISHED 

* No. 18-1357V

Petitioner, *

* Special Master Dorsey

v. *

 * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

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

Christine M. Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On September 5, 2018, John Silva (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(“Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleged that as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 15, 

2015, he developed chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. On September 14, 

2021, the parties filed a stipulation, which the undersigned adopted as her decision awarding 

compensation on the same day. (ECF No. 82).

1 This Decision will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). This means the Decision will be available to 

anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 44 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)B), however, the parties may object 

to the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, Under 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 

filed or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine 

Rule 18(b). Otherwise the whole decision will be available to the public in its current form. Id. 

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) 

(“Vaccine Act” or “the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 300aa. 
2

On November 16, 2021, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 87). Petitioner requests compensation in the 

amount of $54,578.69, representing $38,283.52 in attorneys’ fees and $16,295.17 in costs. Fees 

App. at 1-2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner warrants that he has personally incurred 

costs of $7.60 in pursuit of his claim for compensation. Id. at 2. Respondent filed his response on 

November 30, 2021, indicating that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2 (ECF No. 89). Petitioner did not file 

a reply thereafter. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s motion and 

awards a total of $54,097.89.

I. Discussion

Under the Vaccine Act, the special master 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). 

When compensation is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs “if the special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith

and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. at 

§15(e)(1). In this case, because petitioner was awarded compensation pursuant to a stipulation, 

he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

a. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees 

The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 

F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an 

initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v. 

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward 

departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at 

1348.

Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing 

records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the 

name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 85 

Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are 

“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 

3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It 

is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] 

experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the 

special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent 

and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). 
3

A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of a petitioner’s fee 

application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 

719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its 

attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991) rev’d on other grounds and aff’d 

in relevant part, 988 F. 2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior 

experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests ... 

[v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee 

application.” Saxton, 3 F. 3d at 1521. 

i. Reasonable Hourly Rates

The undersigned has reviewed the hourly rates requested by petitioner for the work of his

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

was performed by Mr. Joseph Pepper, with supporting work from Mr. Ronald Homer, Ms. 

Meredith Daniels, Mr. Patrick Kelly, Ms. Lauren Faga, Ms. Christina Ciampolillo, and Mr. 

Nathaniel Enos), and finds that the hourly rates are consistent with what counsel have previously 

been awarded for their Vaccine Program work. The undersigned shall therefore award them 

herein for work performed in the instant case.

ii. Reasonable Hours Expended

In reducing an award of fees, the goal is to achieve rough justice, and therefore a special 

master may take into account their overall sense of a case and may use estimates when reducing 

an award. See Florence v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-255V, 2016 WL 6459592, at 

*5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). It is well 

established that an application for fees and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time 

billed so that a special master may determine, from the application and the case file, whether the 

amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760

(1989); Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468. Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and 

costs claimed. Id. at *8.

Upon review, the undersigned finds the overall hours billed to be largely reasonable. 

Counsel has provided sufficiently detailed descriptions for the tasks performed. However, a 

small reduction must be made for excessive review of filings by counsel. While it is reasonable 

to have a second set of attorney eyes review substantive filings, such as the petition or a 

settlement demand, it is not reasonable to have another attorney review routine filings given that 

Mr. Pepper (lead counsel in this case) is an experienced Vaccine Program practitioner. 

Accordingly, a reduction of $488.40 is being made to account for this issue. Petitioner is 

therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of $37,795.12.

b. Attorneys’ Costs 

Petitioner requests a total of $16,295.17 in attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of 

acquiring medical records, the Court’s filing fee, postage, work performed by petitioner’s 
4

medical expert, Dr. Kazim Sheikh, and work performed by petitioner’s life care planner, Ms. 

Maureen Clancy. Fees App. at 25-26. The undersigned has reviewed the requested costs and 

finds them to be reasonable and supported with appropriate documentation. Accordingly, the full 

amount of costs shall be awarded.

c. Petitioner’s Costs

Pursuant to General Order No. 9, petitioner has indicated that he has personally incurred 

costs totaling $7.60 in pursuit of his claim. This cost is for postage, which the undersigned finds 

to be reasonable, and it shall be fully reimbursed.

II. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable compensate 

petitioner and his counsel as follows: 

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $38,283.52

(Total Reduction from Billing Hours) - ($488.40)

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $37,795.12

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $16,295.17

(Reduction of Costs) -

Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $16,295.17

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Awarded $54,090.29

Petitioner’s Costs $7.60

Total Amount Awarded $54,097.89

Accordingly, the undersigned awards the following:

1) a lump sum of $54,090.29, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, 

in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Mr. 

Ronald Homer; and

2) a lump sum of $7.60, 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 

Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision.

3

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing 

the right to seek review.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Special Master