VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00189
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00189
Petitioner: Joyce Keenan
Filed: 2017-02-08
Decided: 2018-09-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-02-14
Condition: dermatitis on both her hands and feet
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 18843

AI-assisted case summary:
Joyce Keenan filed a petition on February 8, 2017, alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on February 14, 2014, caused dermatitis on her hands and feet. After the filing of medical records and the respondent's report, Ms. Keenan filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2018, stating she could not prove entitlement. The case was dismissed on February 28, 2018. Subsequently, Ms. Keenan filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs, requesting $14,063.00. This motion was granted on May 2, 2018, with judgment entered on May 3, 2018. After the judgment, Ms. Keenan's counsel discovered that full invoices for expert services rendered by Dr. Thomas Zizic had not been submitted, totaling $4,780.00. Ms. Keenan then moved for relief from the judgment under RCFC 60(b)(1) to include these additional expert fees. The court granted this motion, awarding an additional $4,780.00 in attorney's fees and costs, bringing the total award to $18,843.00. The decision was issued on September 12, 2018.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00189-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-06-07
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/2/2018) Regarding 28 DECISION of Special Master - Fees (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 31 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-189V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Corcoran
JOYCE KEENAN, *
* Filed: May 2, 2018
Petitioner, *
* Decision; Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Randy M. Hitchcock, Whitfield Sharp & Hitchcock, Marblehead, MA, for Petitioner.
Jay Mason All, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On February 8, 2017, Joyce Keenan filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 The Petition alleged
that the influenza vaccine that she received on February 14, 2014, caused her to develop dermatitis
on both her hands and feet. Following the filing of medical records and Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2018, expressing in her view she
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available.
Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 31 Filed 06/07/18 Page 2 of 4
would be unable to prove entitlement in this case. Thereafter, I issued a decision dismissing the
case on February 28, 2018 (ECF No. 23).
Petitioner has now filed a motion requesting final attorney’s fees and costs, dated April 24,
2018. See Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, dated Apr. 24, 2018 (ECF No. 25) (“Fees App.”).
Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs in the combined amount of
$14,063.00 ($12,463.00 in attorney’s fees, plus $1,600.00 in costs), as well as $400.00 for costs
personally incurred by Petitioner. Id. at 2; Ex. 9 to Fees App. at 1 (ECF No. 25-9) (General Order
No. 9 Statement). Respondent filed a document reacting to the fees application on April 25, 2018,
stating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs
are met in this case, but deferring to my discretion the determination of the amount to be awarded.
ECF No. 27 at 2-3.
Unsuccessful petitioners may be awarded reasonable fees and costs if, in the special
master’s exercise of discretion, such an award is appropriate (and, as in the case of successful
claims, the requested fees and costs are reasonable). I have in other decisions addressed at length
the legal standard applicable to evaluating the propriety of a fees request in an unsuccessful case
See, e.g, R.V. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-504V, 2016 WL 7575568 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Nov. 28, 2016). The primary factors to be considered under such circumstances are whether
(a) the petition was brought in good faith; and (b) there was reasonable basis for which the petition
was brought. Section 15(e)(1); Silva v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 108 Fed. Cl. 401, 405
(2012). Determining whether a petition was filed in good faith is a subjective inquiry, and can be
established as long as the petitioner demonstrates an honest belief that he has suffered a
compensable injury. See Lemaire v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-681V, 2016 WL
5224400, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 12, 2016). A claim’s reasonable basis involves
application of objective criteria which looks to the feasibility of the claim, and not to the claim’s
likelihood of success. Id. at 4.
Determining the appropriate amount of an award of reasonable attorney’s fees is a two-part
process. The first part involves application of the lodestar method – “multiplying the number of
hours reasonably expended3 on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec’y of
3 An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is more precisely understood to be the “prevailing market rate” in the relevant
forum. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349; Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468, at
*2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009), mot. for rev. denied, 91 Fed. Cl. 453 (2010), aff’d, 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2011). That rate is in turn determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the award rate on rates paid to similarly
qualified attorneys in the forum where the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C., for Vaccine Program cases). Avera,
515 F.3d at 1348. After the hourly rate is determined, the reasonableness of the total hours expended must be
considered. Sabella, 86 Fed. Cl. at 205-06. This reasonableness inquiry involves consideration of the work performed
on the matter, the skill and experience of the attorneys involved, and whether any waste or duplication of effort is
evident. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 437.
In some cases, determining the proper hourly rate for a particular attorney requires consideration of whether there is
a significant disparity between the forum rate applicable to the Vaccine Program generally and the geographic forum
2

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 31 Filed 06/07/18 Page 3 of 4
Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465
U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). The second part involves adjusting the lodestar calculation up or down to
take relevant factors into consideration. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. This standard for calculating a
fee award is considered applicable in most cases where a fee award is authorized by federal statute.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-37 (1983).
Although Petitioner was not successful in pursuing her claim, I find that the matter had
sufficient reasonable basis to justify a final award of fees. Here, Respondent does not assert that
the matter lacked reasonable basis prior to Petitioner’s decision to seek dismissal, nor does
Respondent question Petitioner’s good faith in filing the claim. I do not find otherwise, based on
my overall review of the record. Claims alleging a vaccine-induced dermatitis injury are frequently
litigated in the Program, both successfully and unsuccessfully. The allegations and medical records
also generally provided an evidentiary basis for the claim, despite the overall outcome.
Furthermore, Petitioner acted reasonably by voluntarily dismissing this matter following an
unsuccessful attempt to retain an expert who could opine as to vaccine causation, and thus did not
unnecessarily run up fees. Thus, Petitioner should obtain a fees and costs award despite the claim’s
dismissal.
I now turn to the amount to be awarded. Petitioner asks that both counsel, Mr. Randy
Hitchcock and Ms. Elaine Sharp, be reimbursed at varying rates for work performed from 2016-
2018. Petitioner requests $366 per hour for Mr. Hitchcock’s work in 2016, with increases to $375
per hour in 2017, and $385 per hour in 2018. See Ex. 1 to Fees App. at 1-11 (ECF No. 25-1).
Petitioner also requests $390 per hour for Ms. Sharp’s work in 2016, with an increase to $400 per
hour in 2017. Id.
I have previously found that Petitioner’s present counsel are entitled to forum rates. See
Sclafani v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-737V, 2017 WL 5381271, at *1 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Oct. 11, 2017) (awarding Ms. Sharp a rate of $400 per hour for 2017, and Mr.
Hitchcock a rate of $366 per hour for 2016 and $375 per hour for 2017); Lemaire v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 13-681V, 2016 WL 5224400 (Fed Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 12, 2016) (awarding
Ms. Sharp hourly rates of $380 and $390 for 2015-2016, respectively). The amounts requested
herein are the same as those awarded to counsel in my previous decisions. I thus find the requested
rates to be reasonable and I will award them in full without reduction. In addition, the increased
amount requested ($385 per hour) for Mr. Hitchcock for work completed in 2018 is reasonable
in which the attorney practices, in order to adjust the rate used for the lodestar calculation. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349,
(citing Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. EPA, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir.
1999)).
3

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 31 Filed 06/07/18 Page 4 of 4
and consistent with the hourly rate chart set forth by the Office of Special Masters and the producer
price index for the office of lawyers (“PPI-OL”).4
Finally, Petitioner requests $1,600.00 in costs associated with this matter (solely
representing reimbursement for a medical review conducted by Dr. Thomas Zizic). Dr. Zizic’s
requested costs are consistent with those awarded by other special masters in the Program to him
for similar work, and I will therefore award the amount requested. See, e.g., Bourche v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 15-232V, 2017 WL 2480936, at *5-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 11,
2017) (awarding Dr. Zizic a rate of $400 per hour); Hales v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
14-552V, 2017 WL 1366069, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 9, 2017) (awarding the same).
Petitioner also requests $400.00 (representing the filing fee) in costs she personally incurred during
this matter.
Otherwise, upon my review of the billing record, the hours expended on this matter by both
counsel appear to be reasonable, and Respondent did not identify any entries as objectionable.
Thus, I will reimburse both counsel in full for their work on this matter. Furthermore, the requested
litigation costs are reasonable and will be awarded in full.
Accordingly, in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining the propriety
of attorney’s fees and costs awards, and based on the foregoing, I GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs, awarding $14,063.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner
and Petitioner’s counsel, Randy Hitchcock, Esq. An award of $400.00 should be made in the form
of a check payable to Petitioner for the costs she personally incurred in the matter. In the absence
of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court SHALL
ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
4 See Office of Special Masters Attorneys’ Hourly Rate Fee Schedule: 2018,
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914 (last accessed on May 1, 2018). The Office of Special Masters currently
favors using the producer price index for the office of lawyers (“PPI-OL”) to measure for inflation. Mr. Hitchcock’s
PPI-OL inflated rate for 2018 was calculated by multiply Mr. Hitchcock’s 2017 hourly rate ($375) by the PPI-OL
index for January 2017 (207.7), and then dividing by the PPI-OL index for January 2016 (201.8). Here, the PPI-OL
calculation for Mr. Hitchcock’s 2018 increased rate results in roughly the same amount that he has requested herein.
Thus, there is no reason to adjust Mr. Hitchcock’s 2018 rate.
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
4

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00189-1
Date issued/filed: 2018-10-30
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 9/12/2018) Regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master - Fees (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 37 Filed 10/30/18 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-189V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JOYCE KEENAN, *
* Filed: September 12, 2018
Petitioner, *
* Attorney’s Fees and Costs;
v. * Motion for Relief from Judgment;
* RCFC 60(b).
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Randy Mather Hitchcock, Whitfield Sharp & Hitchcock, LLC, Marblehead, MA, for Petitioner.
Jay Mason All, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT1
On February 8, 2017, Joyce Keenan filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that
the influenza vaccine she received on February 14, 2014, caused her to develop dermatitis on both
her hands and feet. See Petition (“Pet.”) (ECF No. 1) at 1. Following the filing of medical records
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available.
Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West
1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.
1

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 37 Filed 10/30/18 Page 2 of 5
and Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the claim on February 23,
2018. Thereafter, I issued a decision dismissing the case for insufficient proof on February 28,
2018 (ECF No. 23).
Following the case’s dismissal, Petitioner filed a fees application requesting fees and costs
associated with the above-captioned matter. See Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, dated Apr.
24, 2018 (ECF No. 25). Petitioner requested reimbursement in the combined amount of $14,063.00
(representing $12,463.00 in attorney’s fees, plus $1,600.00 in costs), as well as $400.00 for costs
personally incurred. Id. at 2. I granted the motion on May 2, 2018, and awarded Petitioner the full
amount requested (including the requested $1,600.00 for expert costs). See Decision, dated May
2, 2018 (ECF No. 28) (“Decision”). Judgment entered on May 3, 2018. See Fees Judgment, dated
May 3, 2018 (ECF No. 30) (“Fees Judgment”).
After entry of the Fees Judgment, Petitioner’s counsel informed me that he had failed to
submit full invoices for expert services rendered during the lifespan of the case. See Motion for
Relief from Judgement, filed Aug. 20, 2018 (ECF No. 32) (“Mot.”) at 1-2. In the motion, counsel
explains that $4,780.003 in fees were not submitted for payment in Petitioner’s original fees
application. Id. at 2. Counsel acknowledges that Petitioner’s retained expert, Dr. Thomas Zizic,
submitted a supplemental fee invoice “on or about December 13, 2017,” but contends the invoice
“was not recorded with counsel’s office.” Id. Thus, counsel “inadvertent[ly]” . . . miss[ed]” the
invoice, although it is not clear from the motion when counsel’s office discovered the error. See
id. Based on the above, Petitioner now moves for relief from the Fees Judgment. Petitioner
requests supplemental fees in the amount of $4,780.00 (representing solely Dr. Zizic’s
unreimbursed expert fees). Id.
Respondent filed a document in response to Petitioner’s request on August 24, 2018,
deferring to my discretion to determine whether Petitioner has met the legal standard applicable to
re-opening the case. See Response, dated Aug. 24, 2018 (ECF No. 33) (“Opp.”) at 2-3. Although
Respondent makes no specific objections concerning Petitioner’s request for relief, the response
broadly seems to question whether Petitioner has satisfied the appropriate standard for relief from
judgment. See id. at 2 (“Petitioner’s [m]otion makes no legal analysis or argument . . . [but] simply
mentions her counsel’s inadvertence . . . in missing this invoice and requests that the judgment be
amended . . . .”) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a reply on August 31, 2018, attempting to better explain her
3 Petitioner’ original motion for relief requested additional expert fees in the amount of $4,200.00. See Mot. at 2. This
amount did not accurately reflect the invoice submitted. In her reply, dated August 31, 2018, however, Petitioner
corrected her request to reflect the appropriate amount of expert fees outstanding: $4,780.00. See Reply at 1-2.
Respondent’s brief in reaction also noted the discrepancy. Opp. at 2.
2

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 37 Filed 10/30/18 Page 3 of 5
request in light of the appropriate grounds for relief under RCFC 60(b). See Reply, dated Aug. 31,
2018 (ECF No. 34). Petitioner clarified that she is requesting relief under RCFC (60)(b)(1), which
encompasses “error, misconception, or misunderstanding; an erroneous belief.” Id. at 2 (citing
Curtis v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 511, 514 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Petitioner
asserts that the court should “liberally construe the meaning of the term ‘mistake’ in order to do
substantial justice” in granting her request for additional fees. Id. In addition, Petitioner
acknowledged that her counsel’s original motion for relief failed to correctly state the amount of
expert fees outstanding. Id. at 1-2. According to the reply, the amount of fees outstanding (and
thus being requested herein) amounts to $4,780.00 (as noted above). Id. at 2.
ANALYSIS
Under Vaccine Rule 36, Appendix B, RCFC (the “Vaccine Rules”), a party may seek relief
from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60(a) or 60(b).4 RCFC 60(b) delineates five specific
circumstances for relief, plus a catch-all permitting a party to obtain modification of a decision
based upon “any other reason that justifies relief.” RCFC 60(b)(6).5 Ms. Keenan’s motion invokes
RCFC 60(b)(1), which provides for relief in the case of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect[,]” which the Court of Federal Claims has interpreted to include “[a]n error,
misconception, or misunderstanding; erroneous belief” attributable to a party, counsel, or the court.
Curtis v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 511, 512 (2004).
As a remedial provision, Rule 60(b) is to be “liberally construed for the purpose of doing
substantial justice.” Patton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Special masters have discretion regarding whether to grant relief under Rule 60(b), and to
weigh equitable factors in the exercise of that discretion. See McCray v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 11-567V, 2014 WL 2858593, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 29, 2014) (citing CNA
Corp. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 1, 7 (2008)).
4 RCFC 60(a) concerns corrections based on “minor” clerical mistakes, oversights, and omissions. See Patton v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1021, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[S]ubdivision (a) covers those omissions or mistakes
resulting from a court’s failure to perform a ministerial duty, as opposed to a deliberative or discretionary act
addressable by subdivision (b)”). The rule states, in relevant part, “[t]he Court may correct a clerical mistake or a
mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.”
The Court may act on motion or on its own, without notice to the parties involved. RCFC 60(a).
5 The grounds for relief under RCFC 60(b)(6) require a greater showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” See
Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198, 202 (1950) (finding petitioner did not fulfill the “extraordinary
circumstances” requirement necessary for vacating judgment). The Court of Federal Claims has granted relief under
RCFC 60(b)(6) only where, without such relief, substantial rights of a party would be violated. See Freeman v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 280, 281 (1996) (finding the alleged circumstances “warrant the reopening of
the case in the interest of justice.”); Coleman v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-0710, 2011 WL 6828475, *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 07, 2011) (finding relief from judgment proper under Rule 60(b)(6) to prevent “harm to
substantial rights of petitioner that would result if the requested relief were not granted.”).
3

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 37 Filed 10/30/18 Page 4 of 5
Here, I find that Petitioner has established a basis for revising the Fees Judgment under
RCFC 60(b)(1). Petitioner’s motion (and reply thereafter) articulated that Dr. Zizic’s fees were not
included in the original application due to mistake or inadvertence on counsel’s part. See Mot. at
2. The invoice subsequently submitted by Petitioner evidences the omitted costs owed to Dr. Zizic,
and provides an itemized list of the tasks completed (reflective of the number of hours expended
at the rate previously awarded in my final award of fees and costs). See ECF No. 32-1. This work
was clearly contemplated in my original fees and costs decision, and would have been awarded
had the missing documentation been submitted with Petitioner’s initial request. See Decision at 4
(compensating Dr. Zizic in full for his work on the matter at a rate of $400 per hour).
Other special masters have similarly granted motions for relief from judgment under RCFC
60(b) where a petitioner failed to submit full invoices when requesting an award of fees and costs.
See, e.g., Brock v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-1752V, 1993 WL 266510, at *3-4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 1, 1993) (correcting judgment under RCFC 60(b) where counsel
miscalculated fees and failed to request the full amount expended). I have also granted motions for
relief from judgment where the parties inadvertently omitted invoices from their fees applications
or requested a fees adjustment under RCFC 60(b). See, e.g., Sweat v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 14-329V, 2016 WL 4483039, at *1-2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2016) (amending
judgement under RCFC 60(b)(1) where petitioner’s counsel “inadvertently” failed to account for
guardianship fees in the original fees stipulation); Schmidt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
13-143V, 2016 WL 4483031, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 7, 2016) (amending judgement
under RCFC 60(b)(1) where petitioner requested additional fees pertaining to obtaining
representative capacity incurred subsequent to decision awarding final fees and costs); see also
Williamsen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-223V, 2014 WL 1388894, at *2-3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 4, 2014) (correcting judgment under RCFC 60(a) where parties inadvertently
omitted a mediation invoice from their fees stipulation).
The circumstances support granting the relief Petitioner requests. The motion itself was
made in a mostly reasonable timeframe, within a few months of the judgment rather than a year or
more later. The motion also does not challenge or dispute the underlying merits of the prior fees
decision that produced the Fees Judgment. And the requested correction will merely increase the
size of the Fees Judgment to reflect additional expert fees performed while the case was still under
evaluation. Furthermore, Respondent made no specific objection to Petitioner’s request, nor did
Respondent contest Dr. Zizic’s requested rate, further underscoring the extent to which it is the
view of the parties that the error in question, while in need of correction, is relatively minor in
nature. Such circumstances constitute sufficient grounds to grant the relief requested under RCFC
60(b)(1).
4

Case 1:17-vv-00189-UNJ Document 37 Filed 10/30/18 Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded an additional $4,780.00 in attorney’s fees and costs
in this action in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel, Mr. Randy Hitchcock.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with these terms.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
6 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their
right to seek review.
5