Salah v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1772V

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

*

HATIM M. SALAH, *

*

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Jennifer A. Shah

*

v. *

*

* Filed: June 5, 2025

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Ryan Mahoney, Mahoney Law Firm, LLC, Glen Carbon, IL, for Petitioner.

Dorian Hurley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On October 19, 2017, Hatim M. Salah (“Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”). 2 Pet., ECF

No. 1. Petitioner alleged he suffered from transverse myelitis (“TM”) as a result of an influenza

(“flu”) vaccine he received on October 21, 2016. Id. at 1. On April 12, 2024, after an entitlement

hearing, former Special Master Katherine E. Oler issued a decision denying entitlement, finding

that Petitioner had a viral infection approximately eight days before he developed TM symptoms,

and “[t]he existence of this infection prevents him from meeting his burden of proof under the

second Althen prong.” Salah v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1772V, 2024 WL 1925381

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 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 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2018)) (hereinafter

“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the

pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2024).

This case was reassigned to me on August 28, 2024. ECF No. 92. On November 7, 2024,

Petitioner filed an application (“Fees App.”) for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 93.

Petitioner requests a total of $73,322.95 for attorneys’ fees and costs. Fees App. at 2. Petitioner

affirmed he did not incur any personal costs. Fees App., Ex. 2. Respondent responded to the

motion (“Fees Resp.”) on November 21, 2024, stating that “Respondent defers to the court

regarding whether the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys fees and costs are met in

this case.” Fees Resp. at 2. Respondent did not raise any specific objections regarding good faith

or reasonable basis but stated:

[Respondent] calls the Court’s attention to the April 4, 2024 recorded telephone

status conference and Order, in which Special Master Katherine E. Oler addressed

a discrepancy in the medical records that had been filed, ordered petitioner’s

counsel to file an affidavit describing how the medical records were collected in

this case, and indicated that she was requesting this information for the purposes of

evaluating attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 87. As noted in the April 4, 2024

Order and April 12, 2024 Decision on Entitlement, petitioner’s November 16 and

17, 2016 visits with primary care physician James Wade, M.D., were contained in

the certified records subpoenaed and filed by respondent as Exhibit I, but not in the

records filed by petitioner. Id.; ECF No. 88 at 3 n.7. Petitioner’s counsel filed the

requested affidavit regarding medical record collection on April 18, 2024. ECF

No. 89.

Fees Resp. at 6. No reply was filed by Petitioner, but invoices were filed on June 4, 2025. ECF

No. 95.

This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Legal Standards

Section 15(e) (1) of the Vaccine Act permits a special master to award “reasonable

attorneys' fees, and other costs.” § 300aa–15(e)(1)(A)–(B). Petitioners are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if they are entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act;

furthermore, even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible for such an award so long as the special

master finds that the petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Avera v. Sec'y of

Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

If a petitioner is eligible for an award of fees and costs, it is “well within the special master's

discretion” to determine the reasonableness of such fees and costs. Saxton v. Sec'y of Health &

Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991) (“[T]he reviewing court must grant the special master wide

latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys' fees and costs.”). Applications for

attorneys' fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that describe the work

performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008), aff’d, No. 99-573V, 2008 WL 2066611 (Fed. Cl. Spec.

2

Mstr. Apr. 22, 2008).

Reasonable hourly rates for attorneys’ fees are determined by looking at the “prevailing

market rate” in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The

“prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of

reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. at 895 n.11. The petitioner bears the

burden of proving that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

A. Good Faith

The good faith requirement is assessed through a subjective inquiry. Di Roma v. Sec’y of

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-3277V, 1993 WL 496981, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18,

1993). The requirement “focuses upon whether [P]etitioner honestly believed he had a legitimate

claim for compensation.” Turner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-544V, 2007 WL

4410030, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007). Without evidence of bad faith, “petitioners

are entitled to a presumption of good faith.” Grice v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 36 Fed. Cl.

114, 121 (1996). Thus, so long as Petitioner had an honest belief that his claim could succeed, the

good faith requirement is satisfied. See Riley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-276V,

2011 WL 2036976, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011) (citing Di Roma, 1993 WL 496981,

at *1); Turner, 2007 WL 4410030, at *5.

B. Reasonable Basis

Unlike the good faith inquiry, a reasonable basis analysis requires more than just evaluating

a petitioner’s belief in his claim. Turner, 2007 WL 4410030, at *6-7. Instead, the claim must be

supported by objective evidence. Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 875 F.3d 632, 636

(Fed. Cir. 2017). “[I]n deciding reasonable basis the [s]pecial [m]aster needs to focus on the

requirements for a petition under the Vaccine Act to determine if the elements have been asserted

with sufficient evidence to make a feasible claim for recovery.” Santacroce v. Sec’y of Health &

Hum. Servs., No. 15-555V, 2018 WL 405121, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 5, 2018).

Although the Vaccine Act does not define the quantum of proof needed to establish

reasonable basis, it is “something less than the preponderant evidence ultimately required to

prevail on one’s vaccine-injury claim.” Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 283 (2014).

The Court of Federal Claims affirmed in Chuisano that “[a]t the most basic level, a petitioner who

submits no evidence would not be found to have reasonable basis….” Id. at 286; see 42 U.S.C. §

300aa-13(a)(1) (special masters cannot award compensation “based on the claims of petitioner

alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.”). The Chuisano Court agreed

that a petition that relied only on temporal proximity and a petitioner’s affidavit did not have a

reasonable basis. Id. at 290; see also Turpin v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-564V, 2005

WL 1026714, *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 10, 2005) (finding no reasonable basis when petitioner

submitted an affidavit and no other records); Brown v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-

539V, 2005 WL 1026713, *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2005) (finding no reasonable basis

when petitioner presented only e-mails between her and her attorney).

The Federal Circuit has clarified that “more than a mere scintilla but less than a

3

preponderance of proof could provide sufficient grounds for a special master to find reasonable

basis.” Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 971 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)

(finding petitioner submitted objective evidence supporting causation when she submitted medical

records and a vaccine package insert); see also James-Cornelius v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,

984 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding that “the lack of an express medical opinion on

causation did not by itself negate the claim's reasonable basis.”).

When determining if a reasonable basis exists, a special master may consider a number of

factors, including “the factual basis of the claim, the medical and scientific support for the claim,

the novelty of the vaccine, and the novelty of the theory of causation.” Amankwaa v. Sec'y of

Health & Hum. Servs., 138 Fed. Cl. 282, 289 (2018). This approach allows the special master to

look at each application for attorneys’ fees and costs on a case-by-case basis. Hamrick v. Sec’y of

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-683V, 2007 WL 4793152, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 19,

2007).

II. Discussion

A. Good Faith and Reasonable Basis

The determination of good faith and reasonable basis requires a description of this case’s

procedural history. Again, Petitioner claimed he developed TM caused by a flu vaccination he

received October 21, 2016. In support of his petition, Petitioner filed medical records (re-filed as

“Amended Exhibit 2”3) which purportedly contained all of his primary care records from October

21, 2016 through August 22, 2017. An entitlement hearing was held October 27-28, 2022. During

the hearing, testimony revealed that Petitioner had been seen by his primary care physician

(“PCP”), James Wade, M.D., on November 16 and 17, 2016, for a viral illness. Records of those

two visits, however, were not included in Petitioner’s Amended Exhibit 2.

Special Master Oler directed Respondent to subpoena Dr. Wade’s records. See December

19, 2023 non-PDF Order. The records were filed on April 1, 2024, and did include documentation

of Petitioner’s appointments on November 16 and 17, 2016. Ex. I at 82 -84. Ultimately, Special

Master Oler concluded that Petitioner had a viral illness on November 16 -17, 2016, which predated

the onset of his TM symptoms. As noted, Special Master Oler found this illness precluded a

determination that Petitioner’s TM was caused by the subject vaccination.

On April 4, 2024, Special Master Oler held a status conference with counsel, during which

she discussed the missing records from Amended Exhibit 2 and requested that Petitioner’s counsel,

Mr. Ryan Mahoney, file an affidavit describing how he collected the medical records in this case.

ECF No. 87. On April 18, 2024, Mr. Mahoney filed an affidavit stating that he had requested

complete records from Dr. Wade’s office and filed everything he was given. ECF No. 89. He

attached to the affidavit a CIOX Health Invoice dated October 17, 2017, billing for the production

of 16 pages of medical records, including 12 electronic pages and 4 paper pages. ECF No. 89, Ex.

A. This invoice appears to be consistent with the number and type of pages produced in

Petitioner’s Amended Exhibit 2. It supports Mr. Mahoney’s statement that he produced all of the

3 The original Exhibit 2 was incorrectly bates stamped as Exhibit 3. Petitioner re-filed the exhibit on

September 29, 2022, with the label “Amended Exhibit 2.”

4

records provided to him by Dr. Wade’s office.

In response to Petitioner’s fee application, Respondent did not raise any specific objections

regarding good faith or reasonable basis, though, as noted, he did highlight the fact that Amended

Exhibit 2 was missing important visit notes.4 See generally Fees Resp. Based on my review of

Mr. Mahoney’s affidavit and the attached invoice, which corroborates his account, I do not find

that records were deliberately withheld or that the petition was filed in bad faith. I do note that,

generally, counsel has the responsibility to review medical records before filing them and to take

reasonable measures to ensure they are accurate and complete. See Guidelines for Practice at 15

(revised March 3, 2025) at Section II, Chapter 3, Part A, available at

https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/cfc/files/Vaccine%20Guidelines%203.03.2025.pdf .

As such, I find that Petitioner filed the petition in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

B. Attorneys’ Fees

Petitioner requests a total of $46,985.00 in attorneys’ fees associated with Mr. Mahoney’s

work.

1. Reasonable Hourly Rate

As noted, a reasonable hourly rate is defined as the rate “prevailing in the community for

similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Avera,

515 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n.11). In general, this rate is based on “the forum

rate for the District of Columbia” rather than “the rate in the geographic area of the practice of

[P]etitioner's attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed.

Cir. 2011) (citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349).

McCulloch provides the framework for determining the appropriate compensation for

attorneys' fees based upon the attorneys' experience. See McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.

Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). The Office of

Special Masters has accepted the reasoning of McCulloch and issues an annual Fee Schedule

based on that decision. 5

Petitioner requests compensation for Mr. Mahoney at an hourly rate of $350.00 for his

work from 2017-2024. Mr. Mahoney also requests “staff time” at $85.00 per hour for work

performed from 2017-2024.

This is Mr. Mahoney’s first Vaccine Program case, so his hourly rate has not yet been set.

Mr. Mahoney works in the St. Louis metro area. See ECF No. 93-1 at 2. Attorneys practicing in

St. Louis, Missouri have previously been awarded forum rates. See, e.g., Russell v. Sec’y of Health

& Hum. Servs., No. 17-161V, 2018 WL 3989530 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2018). Mr.

4

I also note that Amended Exhibit 2 appears to be missing page 5, for unclear reasons.

5 The 2015-2025 Fee Schedules are available at: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-

hourly-rate-fee-schedules.

5

Mahoney has been a licensed attorney since 2006. ECF No. 93 -1. His requested hourly rate of

$350.00 seems reasonable. According to the OSM Fee Schedule, in 2017, Mr. Mahoney, with 11

years of experience, should have billed at an hourly rate in the range of $307.00-383.00. In 2024,

Mr. Mahoney, with 18 years of experience, should have billed at an hourly rate in the range of

$407.00-509.00.

When determining the appropriate hourly rate within these ranges, I consider the factors

set forth in McCulloch: experience in the Vaccine Program, overall legal experience, the quality

of work performed, and reputation in the legal community and community at large. See McCulloch

v. Sec'y of Health and Hum. Services, No. 09–293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec.

Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015). Mr. Mahoney appears to have substantial overall legal experience, though

he has very limited experience in the Vaccine Program. Perhaps owing to his newness to the

Program, Mr. Mahoney billed for some non-compensable tasks. For example, he billed time to

“Research vaccine claims in U.S. Court of Claims,” “Review [] Filing Procedures of Federal

Claims,” and “Research settlement/judgment results for Transverse Myelitis cases resulting from

flu shot.” See ECF No. 93-2 at 2-3. However, counsel may not “bill time for educating themselves

about basic aspects of the Vaccine Program.” Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.

14-1111V, 2016 WL 2853910, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 18, 2016). “An inexperienced

attorney may not ethically bill his client to learn about an area of law in which he is unfamiliar. If

an attorney may not bill his client for this task, the attorney may also not bill the Program for this

task.” Carter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1500V, 2007 WL 2241877, at *5 (Fed.

Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 13, 2007).

Nonetheless, because Mr. Mahoney’s requested hourly rate is $350.00 for all seven years

of litigation, which is within or below the accepted range for the periods at issue, I will grant it.6 I

will similarly grant Mr. Mahoney’s requested hourly staff rate of $85.00.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the

litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the rates

charged, hours expended, and costs incurred are reasonable. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1993). Ultimately, however, it is “well within the [s]pecial [m]aster's

discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable

for the work done.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. Such a reduction may be made sua sponte, even in

the absence of enumerated objections from Respondent. Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,

86 Fed. Cl. 201, 208-09 (2009); Savin, 85 Fed. Cl. at 318.

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

when reducing fees. Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 729. Instead, the special master may make a

global reduction to the total amount of fees requested. See Hines, 22 Cl. Ct. at 753 (“special

masters have wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs”);

Hocraffer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011 WL 3705153 (Fed. Cl. Spec.

6 I decline to set Mr. Mahoney’s hourly rate at this time.In this particular case, I conclude Mr. Mahoney’s

hourly rate is reasonable, given the prolonged nature of the litigation and the fact he does not request an

annual rate increase.

6

Mstr. July 25, 2011), mot. for rev. denied, 2011 WL 6292218, at *13 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (denying

review of the special master's decision and endorsing “a global – rather than line-by-line –

approach to determine the reasonable number of hours expended in this case”).

a. Time Spent Learning about the Vaccine Program and Improper Block

Billing

Mr. Mahoney has provided a breakdown of hours billed. The overall hours spent on this

matter appear to be largely reasonable. However, multiple entries in the submitted invoices require

reduction. As noted above, Mr. Mahoney billed approximately 8.6 hours for non-compensable

research. Unfortunately, this was block billed with other activities, such as “Initial Consultation

re injuries from flu vaccine,” “Draft representation agreement,” and “Prepare medical

authorizations,” making it impossible to parse out the precise amount of time spent on non-billable

matters.

Block billing, or billing large amounts of time without sufficient detail as to what tasks

were performed, is clearly disfavored in the Program. Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729

(reducing petitioner's attorneys' fees and criticizing her for block-billing); see also Jeffries v. Sec'y

of Health & Hum. Servs., 2006 WL 3903710, at *8 (Fed Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 15, 2006); Plott v.

Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 1997 WL 842543, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 23, 1997)

(special master noted a review of “each and every entry to assess its reasonableness would be

fruitless, as in many cases [counsel] has lumped together several tasks, rendering it impossible to

assess the reasonableness of any particular task”). Indeed, the Vaccine Program's Guidelines for

Practice state: “Each task should have its own line entry indicating the amount of time spent on

that task. Several tasks lumped together with one time entry frustrates the court's ability to assess

the reasonableness of the request.” 7

b. Administrative Tasks

About 8.2 hours was billed for clerical or administrative tasks, at both attorney and staff

rates. These tasks included: “Prepare Notice of Filing Objective Evidence,” “File Amended

Exhibit 22 [sic],” “Number and organize all medical records and bills for filing with Court; prepare

and file Exhibit List, Exhibit List (Supplemental) and Statement of Completion, including upload

all documents for e-filing,” and “Prepare Notice of Filing of Responsive Expert Report; prepare

Responsive Expert Report for filing.” See ECF No. 93-2 at 4-10.

In the Vaccine Program, this type of administrative work “should be considered as normal

overhead office costs included within the attorneys' fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379,

387 (1989); Dingle v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-579V, 2014 WL 630473, at *4

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 24, 2014). “[B]illing for clerical and other secretarial work is not

permitted in the Vaccine Program.” Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016

WL 720969, at *5 (citing Rochester, 18 Cl. Ct. at 387).

7 Guidelines for Practice at 76 (revised March 3, 2025) at Section X, Chapter 3, Part B(1)(b)), available at

https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/cfc/files/Vaccine%20Guidelines%203.03.2025.pdf.

7

c. Possible Clerical Error

Petitioner’s counsel also billed 15 hours on August 16, 2023 , to “Review entitlement

hearing transcripts.” ECF No. 93-2. This is excessive. Fifteen hours is longer than the total time

spent conducting the two-day entitlement hearing, 8 so I conclude this was a clerical error.

Considering all these issues together, I will apply an overall 10% reduction, or $4,698.50,

to Petitioner’s requested attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, I award Petitioner a total of $42,286.50 in attorneys’ fees.

C. Reasonable Costs

Petitioner requests a total of $26,337.95 in attorneys’ costs: $448.029 for medical record

requests; $206.83 for postage/FedEx; $113.60 for photocopy expenses; $1.70 for PACER fees;

$311.00 for costs associated with Mr. Mahoney’s admission to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Bar; $400.00 for the Court’s filing fee; $24,150.00 for Dr. Simpson’s expert costs; and $706.80 for

the entitlement hearing transcript. See ECF No. 93-2. I will grant the costs associated with postage,

photocopying, PACER, the entitlement hearing transcript, and the Court’s filing fee as they are

normal litigation expenses. I discuss the remaining costs below.

1. David M. Simpson, M.D.’s Expert Costs

Dr. Simpson billed 33 hours, at an hourly rate of $700.00, for his expert reports, medical

literature review, and participation in the entitlement hearing. See ECF No. 93-5. Mr. Mahoney

requests $24,150.00 for Dr. Simpson’s participation in this case. Dr. Simpson is board certified in

neurology, electrodiagnostic medicine, clinical neurophysiology, and neuromuscular medicine.

ECF No. 93-5 at 1. Dr. Simpson was previously denied his requested hourly rate of $700.00 for

opining “outside his area of expertise, since he lacks the requisite immunological background to

credibly address an issue that proved central to the claim’s resolution.” Block v. Sec’y of Health

& Hum. Servs., No. 19-969V, 2022 WL 10510188, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2022). In

Block, Chief Special Master Corcoran reduced his hourly rate in that case to $400.00. Id. The

Chief Special Master in a subsequent decision awarded Dr. Simpson an hourly rate of $500.00.

See Velasquez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1703V, 2024 WL 2186367, at *4 (Fed.

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 16, 2024). More recently, Special Master Dorsey denied a petitioner’s request

to grant Dr. Simpson’s $700.00 hourly rate once again. See Brancheau v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Servs., No. 21-1209V, 2024 WL 4930700, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 5, 2024). Petitioner

has provided no justification for an increase in Dr. Simpson’s hourly rate other than providing his

resumé; I see no reason to disturb his previously awarded hourly rate of $500.00.

8 Mr. Mahoney spent 8.5 hours on October 27, 2022 for “Entitlement hearing day 1; Prep for Entitlement

hearing day 2; Review expert reports on medical records.” ECF No. 93-2 at 8. Mr. Mahoney spent 4.5

hours on “Entitlement hearing day 2.” Id.

9 Mr. Mahoney’s paralegal informed my law clerk via email that there was a duplicate entry for a medical

request for $113.36; therefore, the total cost associated with medical record requests should be $334.66.

8

Although Petitioner is requesting a total of $24,150.00, Dr. Simpson only submitted

invoices for 33 hours of work at $700.00/hour, totaling $23,100.00. See ECF No. 93-5. I believe

the discrepancy can be accounted for by the billing entry 160, which states there is a “prior balance

of $1,050.” ECF No. 93-2 at 10; see also ECF No. 93-5 at 7. I presume that Dr. Simpson

previously engaged in work for which he billed $1,050.00, but the nature of the work is not

explained in the submitted records. I note that if counsel had provided all receipts and checks

issued in this case, this matter could have been clarified. Based on the record before me, I will

award $16,500.00 10 for Petitioner’s expert costs.

2. Costs Associated with Mr. Mahoney’s Admission to the U.S. Court of Federal

Claims Bar

Mr. Mahoney billed $311.00 for his admission to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims

(“USCFC”) Bar. This is comprised of two $15.00 payments to the Supreme Court of Illinois for a

Certificate of Good Standing and $281.00 for the USCFC Bar admission fee. The costs for

admission to the USCFC Bar is non-compensable. Raymo v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 2016

WL 7212323, at *24 (denying costs associated with obtaining counsel's certificate of good standing

from the State Supreme Court); Ceballos v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-97V, 2004 WL

784910, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 25, 2004) (the admission fee for the USCFC bar is not

recoverable).

I award Petitioner a total of $18,263.59 in attorneys’ costs.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, I GRANT Petitioner’s application and award the following:

Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $60,550.09, to be paid

through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt

disbursement.

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. 11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jennifer A. Shah

Jennifer A. Shah

Special Master

10 33 hours x $500.00 per hour = $16,500.00.

11 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice

renouncing their right to seek review.

9