The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1315V
STEPHANIE BENNETT,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 28, 2026
v.
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 COSTS 1
On August 15, 2023, Stephanie Bennett 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration following an influenza vaccine she received on October 19, 2021. Petition,
ECF No. 1. On May 29, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding the Petitioner entitled
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).
to compensation. ECF No. 25. On February 20, 2025, I issued a decision awarding
compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 41.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award
of $38,877.38 (representing $38,131.40 in fees plus $745.98 in costs). Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed October 30, 2025, ECF No. 47. Also, on
October 30, 2025, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-
of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 48.
Respondent did not react to the Motion.
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 reason 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
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
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.
However, I find there is redundant time billed for the review of status reports and
other cursory documents prepared by another attorney. See, e.g., ECF No. 47 at 16-27
(entries dated: 4/3/2024, 5/28/2024, 6/21/2024, 7/29/2024, 8/28/2024, 9/27/2024,
10/28/2024, 11/27/2024, 1/27/2025, 2/25/2025). 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).
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, statements of completion, 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.
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). Accordingly, Petitioner will not receive
fees for redundant efforts. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of
fees to be awarded by $452.60.
ATTORNEY COSTS
Petitioner has otherwise provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs.
ECF No. 47 at 30-37. Respondent offered no response to the rates or amounts sought. I
find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.
3
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 $38,424.78 (representing $37,678.80 in fees plus $745.98 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. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 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