# Salah v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

> United States Court of Federal Claims · July 3, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089414

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** July 3, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Jennifer A. Shah
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089414

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089414. Public record. Not legal advice.