The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1287V
ALEX BROWN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 5, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1
On September 29, 2020, Alex Brown 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration following a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine he received on
October 29, 2018. Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 15, 2022, I issued a ruling on
entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 45. On December 18,
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).
2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner, following briefing by the
parties. ECF No. 60.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $50,501.69 (representing $47,714.70 in fees plus $2,786.99 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 11, 2025, ECF No. 67.
Furthermore, on September 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing
that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 68.
Respondent reacted to the motion on September 12, 2025, indicating that he is
satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ 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. 69. Petitioner filed no reply
thereafter.
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a
reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons listed below.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. 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
2
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,
461 U.S. at 434.
ATTORNEY FEES
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates
requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior
determinations and are hereby awarded herein.
Regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding
damages. See Petitioner’s Memorandum in Support of Damages, filed Mar. 14, 2023,
ECF No. 54. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 5.90 hours drafting the
damages brief. ECF No. 67 at 33. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will
award the attorney’s fees requested.
However, the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request reveal that the
attorneys seek compensation for several paralegal tasks that have been improperly block-
billed with attorney level work. 3 Block-billing attorney level work along with paralegal
duties and/or administrative tasks in the same billing entry, makes it extremely difficult for
the Court to determine the actual amount of time counsel spent on attorney level work
compared to inappropriately billed tasks.
It is well established that block-billing or billing large amounts of time without
sufficient detail as to what tasks were performed, is clearly disfavored in the Program.
See Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 07-137V, 2008 WL 3903710 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec 15, 2006). Ultimately, several tasks lumped together with one-time
entry frustrates the court’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the request. In
determining the amount of reasonable hours, a special master has discretion to exclude
hours expended that are “’excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary’” based on
his or her experience or judgment.” Hocraffer v. Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011
WL 6292218, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2011). Additionally, The Vaccine Program’s
3 Examples of entries that include both paralegal and attorney tasks include the following: 9/29/2020 (two
entries), 11/6/2020, 12/18/2020, 2/4/2021. ECF No. 67 at 4-35.
3
Guidelines for Practice state, “[e]ach task should have its own line entry indicating the
amount of time spent on that task.” 4
In addition, a few other tasks performed by the attorneys in this matter are more
properly billed using a paralegal rate. 5 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a
legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15,
2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately
performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries reflect reasonably performed tasks,
they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal.
Finally, I find that the fees award must be reduced for redundant time billed for the
review of status reports, motions for enlargement, and other cursory documents prepared
by another attorney. See, e.g., ECF No. 67 at 4-35 (entries dated: 10/13/2020, 1/13/2021,
2/12/2021, 1/25/2022, 3/28/2022, 4/28/2022, 6/13/2022, 12/19/2022, 1/9/2023,
2/27/2023, 12/26/2024, 6/26/2025). I am aware that it is a common practice for Conway,
Homer, P.C., to have several attorneys work on the same matter, even if one
predominantly is responsible for hearings. 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 (and the Conway Homer, P.C. attorneys
typically bill reasonable amounts that reflect their personal expertise, with more
experienced counsel needing to spend less time on matters than newer attorneys).
However, it is not reasonable to have an attorney bill for time to review routine
filings, such as status reports, joint notices not to seek review, and motions for
enlargement of time, when those filings were prepared (and billed for) by another
attorney. And 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 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov 19,
2020); Lyons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-414V, 2020 WL 6578229 (Fed.
4 The Guidelines for Practice can be found at the link below. Please refer to page 76:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program
5 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on
medical records requests and drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR questionnaire, notice
of filing, notice of intent, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. See billing
entries dated: 11/11/2020, 12/17/2020 (two entries), 1/9/2025. ECF No. 67 at 4-35.
4
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 2, 2020); Butler v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-561, 2025
WL 2091616 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 23. 2025).
In evaluating a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, special masters “need not,
and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826,
838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011). Instead, in appropriate circumstances they
may make reasonable, across-the-board percentage adjustments.
Here, such an overall percentage cut is reasonable, and preferrable to a time-
consuming line-by-line review of the bill. I therefore reduce the total fees to be awarded
herein by five percent as a fair adjustment to account for the block-billing, paralegal duties,
and redundant attorney review issues mentioned. Application of the foregoing reduces
the total amount of fees to be awarded by $2,525.08. 6
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.
ECF No. 67 at 39-83. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts
sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
CONCLUSION
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for
successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s
Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs
in the total amount of $47,976.61 (representing $45,189.62 in fees plus $2,786.99 in
costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account
for prompt disbursement. 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. 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
6 This amount is calculated as follows: $50,501.69 x 0.05 = $2,525.08.
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice
renouncing their right to seek review.
5
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6