The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1104V
NAKIA HOOKS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 4, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On August 31, 2020, Nakia Hooks filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration which meets the Table definition for a SIRVA injury after receiving an
influenza vaccine on May 2, 2019. Petition at 1. On August 29, 2023, I issued a decision
awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 52.
1
Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of
2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision 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
inf ormation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If , upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material f rom public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section ref erences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $33,736.71 (representing $33,045.50 for fees and $691.21 for costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees filed Feb. 12, 2024, ECF No. 57. Petitioner filed a signed statement
representing that Petitioner incurred $5.95 in out-of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 58.
Respondent reacted to the motion on Feb. 20, 2024, representing that he is
satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met
in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion.
Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 59. Petitioner filed no reply.
Having considered the motion along with the invoices and other proof filed in
connection, I find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the
reason set forth below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section
15(e). 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
& Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed.
Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of
petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).
The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates
charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl.
Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees
and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1.
Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours
that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
2
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2023 are reasonable
and consistent with prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. Petitioner has
also requested the same 2023 attorney hourly rate of $500 per hour for work performed
by Ronald Homer in 2024. ECF No. 57 at 30. Additionally, Petitioner requests an hourly
rate of $185 for paralegal work performed in 2024. Id. I find these hourly rates to be
reasonable.
However, the attorney’s fees must be reduced for redundant time billed for the
review of status reports, correspondence cover letters, and other cursory documents
prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 57 (entries dated 6/15/21; 7/30/21; 5/9/22; 6/8/22;
10/21/22; 12/5/22; 2/17/23; 8/23/23). I note 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 I 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 18-172V, 2020 WL 7392813, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Nov 19, 2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL
6578229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020). I will not award attorney’s fees for this
redundant work. This results in a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded of
$294.00.
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner requests $691.21 in costs. This amount is comprised of obtaining
medical records, shipping costs, and the Court’s filing fee. Petitioner has provided
supporting documentation for all claimed costs and Respondent offered no specific
objection to the rates or amounts sought.
CONCLUSION
3
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded the total amount of $33,448.66 3 as
follows:
• A lump sum of 33,442.71, (representing reimbursement in the amount
of $32,751.50 in fees plus $691.21 in costs), in the form of a check
payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ronald Craig
Homer; and
• A lump sum of $5.95, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s
costs, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of
the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3
This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as f ees f or legal services rendered.
Furthermore, Section 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney f rom charging or collecting fees (including costs) that
would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
4