VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01184 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01184 Petitioner: John Casey Filed: 2019-08-13 Decided: 2024-09-23 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-09-28 Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 197200 AI-assisted case summary: John Casey filed a petition on August 13, 2019, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 28, 2017, caused Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. The public stipulation materials do not describe the full neurologic course or treatment history. Respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Casey to suffer GBS, CIDP, any other injury, or his current condition. The parties nevertheless agreed to resolve the claim by stipulation, and Special Master Thomas L. Gowen adopted the stipulation on September 23, 2024. Mr. Casey received $175,000.00 in compensation and $22,200.00 in additional stipulated compensation, for a total injury award of $197,200.00. A later fee decision concerned attorney fees and costs only and contained internally inconsistent text, so it was not used to alter the public injury facts. Mr. Casey was represented by Patrick Kelly and Conway Homer, P.C. in Boston, Massachusetts. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine on September 28, 2017 allegedly causing Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. COMPENSATED by stipulation, not by admitted causation. Respondent denied vaccine causation, other injury, and sequelae. Public stipulation gives limited clinical detail. Petition filed August 13, 2019; decision by SM Thomas L. Gowen on September 23, 2024. Award $197,200 total, including $175,000 compensation and $22,200 additional stipulated compensation. Later fee material was attorney compensation only. Attorney: Patrick Kelly / Conway Homer, P.C. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01184-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-14 Pages: 10 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 9/23/2024) regarding 102 DECISION Stipulation Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (ms) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 10 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 23, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * JOHN CASEY, * * Petitioner, * No. 19-1184V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Patrick Kelly, Conway Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Mark Hellie, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On August 13, 2019, John Casey, (“petitioner”) filed a Petition for Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 See Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a result of the influenza vaccine he received on September 28, 2017. Id. at Preamble. On September 23, 2024, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7 (ECF No. 101). Respondent “denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from GBS, CIDP, or any other injury or his current condition.” Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, maintaining their respective positions, the parties “now agree 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. 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. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (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. Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 10 that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding” compensation according to the terms of the Stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. The Stipulation provides: 1) A lump sum of $197,200.00, which represents compensation for first year life care expenses ($22,200.00) and combined lost earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses ($175,000.00) in the form of a check payable to petitioner; 2) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the Stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”). These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. at ¶ 8. I adopt the parties’ Stipulation attached hereto and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation and this Decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 3 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 4 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 5 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 6 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 7 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 8 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 9 of 10 Case 1:19-vv-01184-UNJ Document 106 Filed 02/14/25 Page 10 of 10 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01184-cl-extra-11309938 Date issued/filed: 2026-04-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10842583 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: January 8, 2026 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JOHN CASEY, * * Petitioner, * No. 19-1184V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On June 11, 2025, John Casey, (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees (“Fees App.”) (ECF No. 87). For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and award a total of $144,304.16. I. Procedural History On November 12, 2018, Hans Hofer (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that he suffers from brainstem encephalitis as a result of the influenza vaccine he received on December 15, 2015. Id. at Preamble. On September 16, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation, which I adopted as my decision awarding compensation on September 23, 2024. (ECF No. 102). 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 June 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Fees App. at 1. Petitioner requests compensation in the total amount of $144,254.01, representing $99,807.50 in attorneys’ fees and $44,446.51 in costs. Id. at 2. Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner warrants he personally incurred $50.15 in costs in pursuit of his claim. (ECF No. 109). Respondent reacted to the fees motion on June 25, 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. 110). 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, he 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.: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Ronald Homer - - $430 $447 $447 - $500 $525 $567 Christina Ciampolilo - - $350 $380 $425 $425 $470 $500 $537 Joseph Pepper - - $325 - - - $455 - - Meridith Daniels - $294 $320 $350 $350 $410 $455 $485 - Nathaniel Enos - - - - - - - $360 - Patrick Kelly - - $205 $225 $225 $250 $305 $345 $380 Law Clerk - - $155 $165 $165 - - - - Paralegal $138 $142 $145 $155 $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 $99,807.50. 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 $44,446.51. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, copies, flash drives, the Court’s filing fee, expenses related to the client visit including airfare, lodging, rental car, parking transportation, and meals, life care planner fees and travel- related expenses including airfare, lodging, transportation, and meals, and expert fees. Fees App. Tab A at 75-79; Fees App. Tab B. Petitioner requests reimbursement for expert services performed by the following experts: neurologist, David M. Simpson, M.D., at $500.00 per hour for 48.7 hours totaling $24,350.00; and, life care planner, Ms. Maureen Clancy, at her regular rate of $175.00 per hour for 76.9 hours, and at her travel rate of $87.50 per hour for 19 hours, totaling $15,120.00. Fees App. Tab B at 19- 20, 28, 60-65. Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting all of his 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. c. Petitioner’s Costs Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner warrants that he personally incurred costs in the amount of $50.15 for postage in pursuit of his claim, Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting all his requested costs and they appear reasonable and necessary for the 3 presentation of this case. Petitioner is therefore awarded the full amount of personally incurred 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 $99,807.50 (Reduction of Fees) - Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $99,807.50 Attorneys’ Costs Requested $44,446.51 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $44,446.51 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $144,254.01 Petitioner’s Costs Requested $50.15 (Reduction of Costs) - Total Petitioner’s Costs Awarded $50.15 Accordingly, I award the following: 1) A lump sum in the amount of $144,254.01, 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. 2) A lump sum in the amount of $50.15, representing reimbursement for Petitioner’s personally incurred litigation 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