The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: October 3, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CARMEN HILL, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 22-616V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On May 13, 2025, Carmen Hill, (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 56). For the reasons discussed
below, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and award a total of $72,217.17.
I. Procedural History
On June 3, 2022, Carmen Hill (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged
that she suffers from transverse myelitis (“TM”) as a result of the flu vaccination she received on
October 2, 2020. Id. at Preamble. On November 12, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation, which I
adopted as my decision awarding compensation on the same day. (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 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 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Act of
1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018) (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.
On May 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Fees App. at 1.
Petitioner requests compensation in the total amount of $72,217.17, representing $56,667.55 in
attorneys’ fees and $15,549.62 in costs. Id. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner warrants
he has not personally incurred any costs in pursuit of his claim. (ECF No. 57). Respondent reacted
to the fees motion on May 14, 2025, stating that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements
for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Response at 2 (ECF No. 58).
Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Analysis
Under the Vaccine Act, the special master may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
for a petition that does not result in an award of compensation but was filed in good faith and
supported by a reasonable basis. § 300aa–15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was awarded
compensation pursuant to a stipulation, she is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs.
Petitioners “bea[r] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and
the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482,
484 (1993). Adequate proof of the claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is
filed. Id. at 484 n. 1. The special master has the discretion to reduce awards sua sponte, independent
of enumerated objections from the respondent. Sabella v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed.
Cl. 201, 208–09 (Fed. Cl. 2009); Savin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed.
Cl. 2008), aff'd No. 99–537V, 2008 WL 2066611 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 22, 2008).
a. Attorneys’ Fees
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 896 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 Petitioner's
attorney.” Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 632 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing Avera, 515 F. 3d at 1349). There is a “limited exception” that provides for attorneys’ fees
to be awarded at local hourly rates when “the bulk of the attorney's work is done outside the forum
jurisdiction” and “there is a very significant difference” between the local hourly rate and forum
hourly rate. Id. This is known as the Davis County exception. Hall v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 640 F.3d 1351, 1353 (2011) (citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery
Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
For cases in which forum rates apply, McCulloch provides a framework for consideration
of appropriate ranges for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney.
McCulloch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015) motion for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 21, 2015). The Court has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum
Hourly Rate Fee Schedules for 2015-2016 and from 2017-2022, which can be accessed online.
2
Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for his attorneys at Conway Homer,
P.C.:
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Ronald Homer - $475 $500 $525 $567
Meridith Daniels $350 $410 $455 $485 $516
Joseph Pepper - - $455 $485 -
Nathaniel Enos - - $320 $360 $390
Patrick Kelly - $250 $305 - -
Paralegal $155 $170 $185 $195 $207
These rates are consistent with what counsel and staff have previously been awarded for their
Vaccine Program work and I find them to be reasonable herein.
Turning next to review of the submitted billing statement, I find that the overall hours spent
on this matter appear to be reasonable. The entries are reasonable and accurately describe the work
being performed and the length of time it took to perform each task. Respondent has not identified
any particular entries as being objectionable. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’
fees of $56,667.55.
b. Attorneys’ Costs
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests attorneys’
costs in the amount of $15,549.62. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records,
postage, the Court’s filing fee, copies, and life care planner services provided by Ms. Maureen
Clancy for 78.6 hours at $175.00 per hour, totaling $13,755.00. Fees App. Tab A at 62-64; see
also Tab B. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting all of her requested costs
and all expenses appear to be reasonable and necessary for the presentation of the case. Petitioner
is therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought.
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs and find that Petitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs as
follows:
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $56,667.55
(Reduction of Fees) -
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $56,667.55
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $15,549.62
(Reduction of Costs) -
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $15,549.62
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $72,217.17
3
Accordingly, I award a lump sum in the amount of $72,217.17 representing
reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs, 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 the
Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3
Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine
Rule 11(a).
4