The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2310V
JOEY DYLLA,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: December 27, 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 COSTS1
On December 20, 2021, Joey Dylla 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 alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”), a
defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 19, 2019.
On February 27, 2024, I issued a ruling finding Petitioner entitled to compensation and
decision awarding damages following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 65.
1Because 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
information, 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 from 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 references 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 $50,890.71 (representing $49,096.70 for fees and $1,794.01 for costs). Petitioner
Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed Sept. 5, 2024, ECF No. 70. In accordance with
General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-
pocket expenses. ECF No. 71.
Respondent reacted to the motion on September 11, 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. 72. 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
2
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2024 are reasonable
and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted.
Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding
damages. See Petitioner’s Memorandum in Support of Damages, filed Oct. 26, 2023,
ECF No. 58; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on Damages, filed Jan. 24, 2024,
ECF No. 64. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 13.8 hours drafting the brief
and 6.3 hours drafting the reply, for a combined total of 20.1 hours. ECF No. 70 at 30, 32.
I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s fees requested.
However, a small amount must be reduced for attorney time billed for the review
of status reports and other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. ECF No. 70
at 22, 25-26, 28-30, 32-33.3 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. See, e.g., ECF No. 70 at
30 (entry dated 10/26/23). 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 of $509.00.
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs for all but
expenses of $15.00 for copying and $36.89 for postage. ECF No. 70 at 33-66. I will
nevertheless allow reimbursement of these unsubstantiated costs. And Respondent
offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. ECF No. 62.
3 The entries are as follows: 8/30/22, 11/4/22, 12/19/22, 1/18/23, 4/28/23, 6/28/23, 8/2/23, 8/31/23, 9/11/23,
1/2/24, 2/28/24, 3/19/24.
3
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). I award a total of $50,381.71 (representing
$48,587.70 for fees and $1,794.01 for costs) as a lump sum in the form of a check
jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ronald Craig Homer. 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
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
4