1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 05-471V

Filed: December 3, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

AUGUST STEFKOVICH, parent of N.S., *

a minor, *

 * Special Master Gowen

Petitioner, *

 *

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

Respondent. *

 *

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

Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Heather L. Pearlman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On April 14, 2005, August Stefkovich (“petitioner”) filed a petition on behalf of N.S., his

minor child, pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2

42 U.S.C. §§ 

300aa-1 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving measles-mumps-rubella 

(“MMR”) and varicella vaccinations on April 9, 2002, N.S. developed a seizure disorder that 

resulted in global developmental delay. Amended Petition at Intro. The undersigned issued a 

decision awarding petitioner compensation pursuant to the terms of a joint stipulation filed by the 

 

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

undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the 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 (2012)). 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).

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. §§ 300aa1 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.A. § 300aa.
2

parties on May 11, 2015. Judgment entered on May18, 2015. 

Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on November 10, 2015. On 

November 20, 2015, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs, stating that “while [she] disagrees with the analysis and findings in [McCulloch], 

respondent has determined that her resources are not wisely used by continuing to litigate the 

issues addressed in that decision.” Response to Motion at 1-2. Accordingly, respondent 

indicated that she “defers to the special master’s statutory discretion in determining a reasonable 

fee award for this case.” Id. at 2.

Petitioner here requests a total award of fees and costs in the amount of $61,900.03. 

Motion for Attorney Fees & Costs at ¶ A. This amount includes attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$44,253.50, and attorneys’ costs in the amount of $14,500.83. Id. Additionally, in accordance 

with General Order #9, petitioner represents that he incurred reimbursable costs in pursuit of this 

claim in the amount of $3,145.70. Id.; Petitioner and Counsel Statement at 1.

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 

300 aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, which is consistent with the 

rates and reasoning established in McCulloch, the undersigned GRANTS the request for 

approval and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Accordingly, an award should be made as follows:

(1) in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and to petitioner’s attorneys 

at Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, in the amount of $58,754.33; and

(2) in the form of a check payable to petitioner only, August Stefkovich, pursuant to 

General Order No. 9, in the amount of $3,145.70.

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/ Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

 

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

renouncing the right to seek review.