The opinion
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-589V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
FIRAS IDO, *
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Shah
*
v. * Filed: July 27, 2026
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Christopher J. Webb, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis, TN, for Petitioner.
Crystal Fialkowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On January 12, 2021, Firas Ido (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).
Petitioner alleged that he suffered from brachial neuritis/plexopathy as a result of a tetanus,
diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination he received on June 24, 2019, and an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 30, 2022. Id. at 1. Petitioner later filed an
amended petition amending his injury to a neurological shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration from the Tdap vaccination he received on June 24, 2019. ECF No. 35. On August
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.
5, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation, which I adopted in a Decision awarding compensation the
same day. ECF Nos. 74-75. Petitioner was awarded $10,000.00 in damages. ECF No. 75.
On October 1, 2025, Petitioner filed an application for final attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF
No. 80 (“Fees App.”). Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $106,929.93.
This total consists of $66,667.34 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Petitioner’s current
counsel at Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee (“BMJRG”), and $40,262.59 in attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred by Petitioner’s former counsel at Conway, Homer, P.C. Id. at 2. Additionally,
Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that he did not incur any costs related to the
prosecution of this case. Fees App., Ex. 4. Respondent responded to the application for fees and
costs on October 14, 2025, stating that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and requesting “that the Court exercise its discretion
and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.” ECF No. 81 (“Fees Resp.”) at 2,
4. Petitioner filed a reply on October 20, 2025. ECF No. 82 (“Fees Reply”). After receiving
notification of a deficient expert invoice, on June 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a supplemental fees
application with supporting documentation and a clarification of expenses. ECF No. 83 (“Supp.
Fees App.”).
This matter is now ripe for consideration.
I. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Section 15(e)(1) of the Vaccine Act allows the 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,
or, even if they are unsuccessful, they are eligible 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 & Hum.
Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, because Petitioner was awarded compensation
pursuant to a stipulation, he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521-22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008).
Reasonable hourly rates 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 providing
adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.
2
A. Reasonable Hourly Rates
1. Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee
Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for his attorneys at BMJRG: for
Mr. Christopher Webb, $435.00 per hour for work performed in 2024, and $472.00 per hour for
work performed in 2025; for Mr. William E. Cochran, $478.00 per hour for work performed in
2024, and $519.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; and for Ms. Hallie Goodman Flanagan,
$386.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2024. See generally Fees App., Ex.
2. Petitioner also seeks compensation for paralegals at rates ranging from $183.00-$199.00 per
hour for work performed from 2024-2025. The hourly rates requested by Mr. Webb, the 2024 rate
for Mr. Cochran, and the paralegals’ rates are consistent with what counsel and staff have
previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work and shall be awarded herein. See, e.g.,
Cravotta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-2051V, 2025 WL 2452159 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 24, 2025); Sims on behalf of A.E.S. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1526V,
2023 WL 2234265, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2023); Gregory v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 21-1857V, 2025 WL 1588104 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 23, 2025).
The remaining hourly rates require adjustment, as they are not consistent with previously
awarded rates. Ms. Flanagan will be awarded $336.00 (not $386.00) per hour for time billed in
2024. See Sims on behalf of A.E.S.. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1526V, 2026 WL
937537, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2026). This results in a reduction of $145.00.3
Additionally, Mr. Cochran will be awarded $518.00 (not $519.00) per hour for time billed in 2025.
See Alvarado v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 24-1214V, 2026 WL 1985303, at *2 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 2, 2026). This results in a reduction of $0.40.4 These reductions total $145.40.5
2. Conway Homer, PC
Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for his former attorneys at Conway
Homer: for Mr. Ronald Homer, $447.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2020
and 2021, $475.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2022, $500.00 per hour for
work performed in work performed in 2023, and $567.00 per hour for work performed in work
performed in 2025; for Ms. Christina Ciampolillo, $380.00 per hour for work performed in work
performed in 2021, $425.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2022, $470.00 per
hour for work performed in work performed in 2023, and $500.00 per hour for work performed in
work performed in 2024, and $537.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2024;
for Mr. Joseph Pepper, $455.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2023, and
$485.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2024; for Ms. Meredith Daniels,
$350.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2021, and $485.00 per hour for work
performed in work performed in 2024; and for Mr. Patrick Kelly, $345.00 per hour for work
performed in work performed in 2024. For paralegals, petitioner requests the following rates:
3
This amount is calculated as follows: ($386.00 - $366.00) x 2.9 hrs. = $145.00.
4
This amount is calculated as follows: ($519.00 - $518.00) x 0.4 hrs. = $0.40.
5
This amount is calculated as follows: $145.00 + $0.40 + $563.40 = $145.40.
3
$145.00-$207.00 per hour for work performed in work performed in 2019- 2025. 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 here. See, e.g., Guzman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 22-957V, 2025 WL 1891419, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2025); Vargas-Stellon v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-863V, 2024 WL 4930698, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov.
6, 2024); K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1660V, 2024 WL 4043684, at *2 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2024).
B. Reasonable Hours Expended
Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that
are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Additionally, it is well-established that billing for
administrative/clerical tasks is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States,
18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Arranga v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-1616V, 2018 WL
2224959, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018).
I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request, and I find a
reduction is necessary for the reasons set forth below.
1. Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee
I have identified several charges throughout the billing records submitted by BMJRG that
are for inappropriate clerical tasks, totaling approximately 6.10 hours. Examples include (but are
not limited to):
• August 23, 2024: 1.00 hours billed at $183.00/hour by a paralegal: “Saved filings from
court after order substituting attorney.”
• September 9, 2024: 0.50 hours billed at $183.00/hour by a paralegal: “Submitted Chris
Webb trip expenses. Drafted and sent post meeting letter to client.”
• March 21, 2025: 2.00 hours billed at $199.00/hour by a paralegal: “Drafted Notice of
Filing and Table of Contents, prepared exhibits for filing.”
• June 10, 2025: 0.20 hours billed at $199.00/hour by a paralegal: “Filed amended
petition.”
See, e.g., Fees App., Ex. 2. These tasks resulted in $1,170.70 charged fees. Accordingly, I find
that a $1,170.70 reduction in attorneys’ fees is appropriate.
Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $49,495.90 for
the work performed by BMJRG.
2. Conway Homer, PC
4
For Conway Homer, a reduction is also necessary for time billed for administrative and
clerical tasks. Some entries were also block billed, meaning non-compensable administrative tasks
were indistinguishably billed together with compensable tasks. See generally Fees App., Ex. 5.
Examples of these non-compensable entries include (but are not limited to):
• July 16, 2021: 0.40 hours billed at $170.00/hour by a paralegal: “Draft NOF for Exs.
1-3, final review of exhibits for any pagination errors prior to filing, draft exhibit list,
filed pleadings and exhibits electronically, update case file with copies of pleadings.”
• October 28, 2021: 3.5 hours billed at $155.00/hour by a paralegal: “Continue/complete
initial record summary, summarize medical records/exhibits 3; volumes I, pg 269 to
606; transmit pertinent medical appointments and testing in chronological med record
summary; take notes to confirm f/u visits and testing is included as ordered; note any
potentially missing records. Review insurance EOBs and compare to record summary.
Review notes taken during summary and draft memo to SR outlining missing records
and follow up needed.
• March 15, 2022: 0.30 hours billed at $170.00/hour by a paralegal: “Review order, draft
motion for extension of time, filed electronically following attorney review, copy of
pleading saved to case file.”
• January 13, 2023: 0.70 hours billed at $185.00/hour by a paralegal: “log into MRO
portal and process electronic payment for medical records from St. Luke’s
Dermatology; St. Luke's Cedar Point Primary Care; St. Luke’s Center for Diabetes and
Endocrinology and St. Luke’s Orthopedic Care. Updated case file with invoices and
payment details.”
See, e.g., Fees App., Ex. 5. Because these tasks were performed over four years (from 2021-2024),
billed at different hourly rates, and included both administrative tasks and block billing, I will
apply a flat $1,000.00 deduction from the requested attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, Petitioner is
awarded final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $32,261.20 for the work performed by Conway
Homer.
C. Attorneys’ Costs
1. Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992).
Petitioner requests a total of $15,855.34 in attorneys’ costs incurred by BMJRG. This
amount is comprised of postage, medical records, the Court’s filing fee, travel-related expenses,
including airfare, lodging, meals, and ground transportation, and expert services provided by
Joseph Jeret, M.D., and Justin Willer, M.D. See Fees App. at Ex. 2.
5
a. Expert costs
Petitioner requests reimbursement for expert services provided by Dr. Jeret, at $500.00 per
hour for 12.75 hours, totaling $6,375.00. Fees App., Ex. 2 at 31. Dr. Jeret’s requested rate is
consistent with what he has been awarded for his past work in the Program, and his billing records
appear reasonable. See, e.g., Bettinger v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1478V, 2025 WL
3267266, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 27, 2025).
Petitioner requests reimbursement for expert services provided by Dr. Willer, at $550.00
per hour for 6 hours, totaling $3,300.00, as well as an independent medical examination (“IME”)
for $1,500.00, and an electromyograph (“EMG”) for $1,500.00. See Fees App., Ex. 2 at 29-30;
Supp. Fees App. at 3. Petitioner’s initial motion for attorneys’ fees and costs included an invoice
from Dr. Willer, billed as a lump sum for $3,475.00. Fees App., Ex. 2 at 29. However, on June
26, 2026, Petitioner filed a detailed invoice for Dr. Willer, requesting to amend his costs related to
Dr. Willer’s invoice to $3,300.00. Supp. Fees App. at 3. Petitioner explained that “[t]he expert
management company erroneously billed the amount of $3,475.00, which Petitioner’s counsel
paid, and is going to refund the $175.00 discrepancy directly to Petitioner’s counsel.” Supp. Fees
App. at 1. This billing error results in a reduction of $175.00. Otherwise, Dr. Willer’s requested
rate is consistent with what he has been awarded for his past work in the Program, and his billing
records appear reasonable. See, e.g., Cheatwood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-23V,
2025 WL 3689117, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 6, 2025).
b. Lodging
Petitioner requests reimbursement for Mr. Webb’s travel expenses related to a client visit
from September 6, through September 7, 2024, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During this client
visit, Mr. Webb stayed at the Four Seasons Hotel at a nightly rate of $475.00, excluding taxes and
fees. Fees App., Ex. 2 at 24. Excluding food and parking, the total for his stay was $1,140.40.
While counsel is not bound by the GSA daily lodging budget, I use that as a general guideline for
the reasonableness of the cost requested. The September 2024 rate for Philadelphia, PA is $211.00
per night.6 As such, I will reduce the lodging costs requested by 30%, or $342.12.
c. Meals
Petitioner requests reimbursement for various meal expenses incurred by Mr. Webb on his
trip to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the in-person client meeting in September 2024. There are
no corresponding receipts for the meals billed by Mr. Webb, other than the charges appearing on
the hotel invoice. See generally Fees App. Ex. 2. This issue is not new to Mr. Webb. See, e.g.,
Moua v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1023V, 2025 WL 2443149, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 14, 2025) (reducing Mr. Webb’s meals by 50% because there were no itemized receipts
for the meals, only the hotel invoice). Because Mr. Webb did not submit an itemized receipt for
these meals, I will reduce these costs by 50%, resulting in a reduction of $171.86.7
6
See GSA FY 2024 Per Diem Rates for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-
book/per-diem-rates.
7
This amount is calculated as $62.92 + $52.36 + $81.84 + $111.68 + $34.92 = $343.72 x 50% = $171.86.
6
Petitioner has otherwise provided adequate documentation supporting the other requested
costs. Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded a total of $14,882.69 for costs incurred by BMJRG.
2. Conway Homer, PC
Petitioner requests a total of $7,001.39 in attorneys’ costs, including the acquisition of
medical records, postage, copies, and expert services provided by physiatrist Anandeep Kumar,
M.D. See Fees App., Ex. 5, Tab B.
Petitioner requests reimbursement for expert services provided by Dr. Kumar at $400.00
per hour for 11.5 hours, totaling $4,600.00. Fees App., Ex. 5, Tab B at 24. This appears to be Dr.
Kumar’s first case in the Vaccine Program; therefore, he has not been awarded an expert rate. Dr.
Kumar received his medical degree from Sri Venkateswara University Medical College &
Hospitals (Tirupati, India) in 1992, and completed his surgery residency training program at the
Medical University of Ohio (Toledo, Ohio) in 1999, and his physical medicine and rehabilitation
residency training program at Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital & Rehabilitation Medicine
Clinics (Wheaton, Illinois) in 2002. See Fees App., Ex. 5, Tab D at 1-2. Dr. Kumar holds
numerous board certifications, including in physical medicine and rehabilitation and electro-
diagnostic medicine. Id. at 1. He has more than 20 years of clinical experience and appears to be
well qualified to provide an expert opinion in the Vaccine Program. See id. I find Dr. Kumar’s
rate and the work he performed in this case to be reasonable and will award his requested costs in
full.
The remaining costs requested in this matter appear reasonable and are fully supported.
Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded a total of $7,001.39 for costs incurred by Conway Homer.
II. Conclusion
In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2018), I have reviewed the
billing records and costs in this case and find that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is
reasonable in part. I find that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows:
BMJRG
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $50,812.00
(Reduction of Fees) ($1,316.10)
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $49,495.90
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $15,855.34
(Reduction of Costs) ($688.98)
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $15,166.36
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (BMJRG) $64,662.26
7
Conway Homer, PC
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $33,261.20
(Reduction of Fees) ($1,000.00)
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $32,261.20
Attorneys’ Costs Requested $7,001.39
(Reduction of Costs) -
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $7,001.39
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Conway Homer, PC) $39,262.59
Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded attorney’s fees and costs as follows:
1. A lump sum of $64,662.26 representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’
fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s (Black
McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee) IOLTA account for prompt disbursement.
2. A lump sum of $39,262.59 representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s attorneys’
fees and costs, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s former counsel’s
(Conway Homer, PC) 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.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jennifer A. Shah
Jennifer A. Shah
Special Master
8
Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Vaccine Rule 11(a).
8