VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01724
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01724
Petitioner: G.R.
Filed: 2021-08-18
Decided: 2024-09-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-12-07
Condition: acute disseminating encephalomyelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Michael and Monica Ritchey filed a petition on behalf of their minor son, G.R., alleging that he suffered acute disseminating encephalomyelitis as a result of receiving the influenza and Hepatitis A vaccines on December 7, 2018. The parties reached a settlement, and G.R. was awarded compensation. Subsequently, the Petitioners moved for attorney's fees and costs. The initial decision on fees and costs, dated April 29, 2024, awarded $45,767.70, excluding future guardianship costs. The Petitioners moved for review of this decision, and the matter was remanded to determine compensation for future guardianship costs. A supplemental motion for fees and costs was filed, including fees for the appeal and the previously excluded guardianship costs. The final decision on September 12, 2024, granted the motion, awarding a total of $66,223.70 in attorney's fees and costs, including the full amount for personally incurred guardianship costs.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01724-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-05-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/29/2024) regarding 44 DECISION of Special Master - Fees. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 45 Filed 05/28/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1724V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
MICHAEL RITCHEY and MONICA *
RITCHEY, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
parents of G.R., a minor, *
* Filed: April 29, 2024
Petitioners, *
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Meredith Daniels, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioners.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING IN PART FINAL AWARD OF
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On August 18, 2021, Monica and Michael Ritchey filed a petition on behalf of their minor
son, G.R., for compensation under the National Vaccine and Injury Compensation Program (the
“Vaccine Program”).2 (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”). Petitioners alleged that G.R. suffered acute
disseminating encephalomyelitis as a result of his December 7, 2018, receipt of the influenza and
Hepatitis A vaccines. Pet. at 1. The matter was settled in Petitioners’ favor, and they were awarded
damages. Decision, dated October 2, 2023 (ECF No. 34) (“Decision”).
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, it will nevertheless be posted on the United
States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012).
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 whole Decision will
be available to the public. 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 at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to Section 300aa of the Act (but will omit the statutory prefix).

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 45 Filed 05/28/24 Page 2 of 5
Petitioners have now filed a motion for a final award of attorney’s fees and costs (the sole
fees request in this matter). Motion, dated April 1, 2024 (ECF No. 41) (“Final Fees Mot.”).
Petitioners request a total of $59,977.20, reflecting $42,880.20 in fees and costs incurred by the
services of the Conway Homer firm, and $17,097.00 in costs personally incurred by the Petitioners.
Final Fees Mot. at 2. Respondent reacted to the final fees request on April 3, 2024. Response, dated
April 3, 2024 (ECF No. 43) (“Response”). Respondent agrees that Petitioners have satisfied the
statutory requirements for a fees award, and otherwise defers the calculation of the amount to be
awarded to my discretion. Response at 2–3.
For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT IN PART Petitioners’ motion, awarding
fees and costs in the total amount of $45,767.70.
ANALYSIS
I. Calculation of Fees
Having prevailed in this matter, the Petitioners are entitled to an award of fees and costs.
Determining the appropriate amount of the fees award is a two-part process. The first part involves
application of the lodestar method - “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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.
Id. 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).
An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the
proper hourly rate to be awarded on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C.,
for Vaccine Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there
is a substantial difference in rates (the so-called “Davis exception”). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348
(citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges
for attorneys with different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine
Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at
*19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
Petitioners request the following rates for his attorneys, based on the years work was
performed:
2

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 45 Filed 05/28/24 Page 3 of 5
Attorney 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Meredith Daniels -- $350.00 $350.00 $410.00 $455.00 $455.00
Christina Ciampolilo -- $380.00 -- -- -- $470.00
Joseph Pepper -- -- $355.00 $415.00 -- --
Ronald Homer -- -- $447.00 $475.00 $500.00 $500.00
Nathaniel Enos -- -- -- $280.00 $320.00 --
Patrick Kelly -- -- -- -- $305.00 --
Paralegals $145.00 $155.00 $155.00 $170.00 $185.00 $185.00
Final Fees Motion at 5-24.
The Homer attorneys who provided services in this case practice in Boston, MA—a
jurisdiction that has been deemed “in forum.” Accordingly, they should be paid forum rates as
established in McCulloch. See Lozano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-369V, 2020 WL
7869439, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2020). The rates requested are also consistent with
what has previously been awarded to them, in accordance with the Office of Special Masters’ fee
schedule.3 Japaridze v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1545V, 2023 WL 4104131, at *1
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 17, 2023); Kimball v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-2000V,
2023 WL 4044612, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16, 2023); Meyer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 20-2031V, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16, 2023). I thus find no cause to
reduce them in this instance. And I deem the time devoted to the matter to be reasonable. I will
therefore award all fees requested without adjustment.
II. Calculation of Costs
Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must
also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Presault v. United States, 52 Fed.
Cl. 667, 670 (2002); Perreira v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992).
Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while
working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at
*16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). When petitioners fail to substantiate a cost item, such as
by not providing appropriate documentation to explain the basis for a particular cost, special
3 OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914 (last visited April
26, 2024).
3

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 45 Filed 05/28/24 Page 4 of 5
masters have refrained from paying the cost at issue. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).
Petitioners seek $1,655.30 in outstanding attorney’s costs, which comprises filing fees,
medical records requests, mailing costs, and the cost of making a client visit to Petitioners. Final
Fees Mot. at 25. These expenses are commonly incurred in the Vaccine Program, are reasonable
herein, and shall be awarded.
In addition, the Petitioners request $17,097.00 in personally-incurred costs, representing
fees to establish a guardianship with the help of attorney Lucy Shackleford. Final Fees Mot. at 50–
63. This includes $2,887.50 reflecting time spent on actually establishing the guardianship, plus
$1,250.00 annually to maintain the guardianship until 2035—an amount that would total
$14,209.50. Id. at 57. To reach this figure, Ms. Shackleford has assumed a $1,250.00 per year in
fees, including reviewing bank statements and preparing annual accounting. Id. She then has
discounted this cost to net present value, using a 1% discount rate for each year. Id. Adding the
cost of each year together totaled $14,209.50. Id.
Establishing a guardianship has been determined to be a legitimate cost associated with
some Vaccine Act claims (especially when a stipulated settlement requires it). Barrett v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-389V, 2014 WL 2505689 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2014). But
the same is not true for the cost of maintaining a guardianship thereafter. Crespo v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. 231, 236 (2018) (affirming decision of Special Master to deny costs
to maintain guardianship). And although some special masters have ruled otherwise, I have not.
Barrett, 2014 WL 2505689, at *5–6 (denying fees related to guardianship administration after
establishment because they were not “incurred” in association with the vaccine petition).
Therefore, the future costs Petitioners request will not be awarded.
As a result of the foregoing, Petitioners will only be granted $2,887.50 in personal costs
for the work of Ms. Shackleford in establishing the guardianship.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining
the propriety of a final fees award, I GRANT IN PART Petitioners’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees
and Costs, and award a total of $45,767.70, reflecting (a) $42,880.20 in attorney’s fees and costs,
in the form of a check made jointly payable to Petitioners and their attorney Ms. Meredith Daniels,
and (b) $2,887.50 in costs personally incurred by Petitioners, in the form of a check payable to
them.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 45 Filed 05/28/24 Page 5 of 5
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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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.
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01724-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-09
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/12/2024) regarding 55 DECISION of Special Master - Fees. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 58 Filed 10/09/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1724V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
MICHAEL RITCHEY and MONICA *
RITCHEY, parents of G.R., a minor, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
* Filed: September 12, 2024
Petitioners, *
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioners.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING FINAL AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
On August 18, 2021, Monica and Michael Ritchey filed a petition on behalf of their minor
son, G.R., for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the
“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petition (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”). Petitioners alleged that G.R. suffered acute
disseminating encephalomyelitis as a result of his December 7, 2018, receipt of the influenza
(“flu”) and Hepatitis A (“Hep A”) vaccines. Id. at 1.
The parties agreed on a stipulation resolving the case, and I issued a decision awarding
Petitioner compensation. See Decision, dated Oct. 2, 2023 (ECF No. 34). Petitioners next moved
for a fees award (see Motion, dated Apr. 1, 2024 (ECF No. 41) (“Mot.”)), and on April 29, 2024, I
issued a decision granting Petitioners all sums requested, with the exception of future guardianship
costs. Decision, dated Apr. 29, 2024 (ECF No. 44). Petitioners moved for review of my decision
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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 whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. 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 at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to Section 300aa of the Act (but will omit the statutory prefix).

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 58 Filed 10/09/24 Page 2 of 5
(ECF No. 46), and the motion was granted. See Order, dated Aug. 13, 2024 (ECF No. 50)
(“Remand Order”) (finding that Petitioners are entitled to compensation for personally-incurred
costs, including the cost of maintaining a guardianship, and remanding the matter to determine
whether the sum requested was reasonable). I accordingly withdrew my prior fees decision, in
order to comply with the Remand Order. Order, dated Aug. 29, 2024 (ECF No. 52).
Thereafter, Petitioners filed a supplemental motion for attorney’s fees and costs on August
21, 2024, to include fees incurred in connection with their appeal. Supplemental Motion, dated
Aug. 21, 2024 (ECF No. 51) (“Supp. Mot.”). In total, Petitioners have requested $66,223.70,
reflecting $49,126.70 in fees and costs incurred by the services of the Conway Homer firm, and
$17,097.00 in costs Petitioners personally incurred (including the future guardianship costs). Mot.
at 2; Supp. Mot. at 2. Respondent reacted to the fees request on April 3, 2024. Response, dated
Apr. 3, 2024 (ECF No. 43) (“Resp.”). Respondent agrees that Petitioners have satisfied the
statutory requirements for a fees award, and otherwise defers the calculation of the amount to be
awarded to my discretion. Resp. at 2–3.
For the reasons set forth below, I hereby GRANT Petitioners’ motion, awarding fees and
costs in the total amount of $66,223.70.
ANALYSIS
I. Calculation of Fees
Having prevailed in this matter, the Petitioners are entitled to an award of fees and costs.
Determining the appropriate amount of the fees award is a two-part process. The first part involves
application of the lodestar method - “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.” Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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.
Id. 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).
An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which bases the
proper hourly rate to be awarded on the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, D.C.,
for Vaccine Act cases), except where an attorney’s work was not performed in the forum and there
is a substantial difference in rates (the so-called “Davis exception”). Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348
(citing Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). A 2015 decision established the hourly rate ranges
for attorneys with different levels of experience who are entitled to the forum rate in the Vaccine
Program. See McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at
*19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
2

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 58 Filed 10/09/24 Page 3 of 5
Petitioners request the following rates for his attorneys, based on the years work was
performed:
Attorney 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Meredith Daniels -- $350.00 $350.00 $410.00 $455.00 $455.00
Christina Ciampolilo -- $380.00 -- -- -- $470.00
Joseph Pepper -- -- $355.00 $415.00 -- --
Ronald Homer -- -- $447.00 $475.00 $500.00 $500.00
Nathaniel Enos -- -- -- $280.00 $320.00 --
Kelly P. -- -- -- -- $305.00 --
Paralegals $145.00 $155.00 $155.00 $170.00 $185.00 $185.00
Mot. at 5–24; Supp. Mot. at 5–6.
The Homer attorneys who provided services in this case practice in Boston, MA—a
jurisdiction that has been deemed “in forum.” Accordingly, they should be paid forum rates as
established in McCulloch. See Lozano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-369V, 2020 WL
7869439, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2020). The rates requested are also consistent with
what has previously been awarded to them, in accordance with the Office of Special Masters’ fee
schedule.3 Japaridze v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1545V, 2023 WL 4104131, at *1
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 17, 2023); Kimball v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-2000V,
2023 WL 4044612, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16, 2023); Meyer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 20-2031V, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 16, 2023). I thus find no cause to
reduce them in this instance. And I deem the time devoted to the matter to be reasonable, including
time specific to the appeal. I will therefore award all fees requested without adjustment.
II. Calculation of Costs
Just as they are required to establish the reasonableness of requested fees, petitioners must
also demonstrate that requested litigation costs are reasonable. Presault v. United States, 52 Fed.
Cl. 667, 670 (2002); Perreira v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992).
Reasonable costs include the costs of obtaining medical records and expert time incurred while
working on a case. Fester v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.10-243V, 2013 WL 5367670, at
3 OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules, https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914 (last visited Sept. 5,
2024).
3

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 58 Filed 10/09/24 Page 4 of 5
*16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 2013). When petitioners fail to substantiate a cost item, such as
by not providing appropriate documentation to explain the basis for a particular cost, special
masters have refrained from paying the cost at issue. See, e.g., Gardner-Cook v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 99-480V, 2005 WL 6122520, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 2005).
Petitioner seeks $1,655.30 in outstanding attorney’s costs, which comprises filing fees,
medical record retrieval costs, mailing costs, and costs associated with a client visit. Mot. at 25.
These expenses are commonly incurred in the Vaccine Program, are reasonable herein, and shall
be awarded.
In addition, Petitioners requested $17,097.00 in personally-incurred costs, representing
fees to establish a guardianship with the help of attorney, Lucy Shackleford. Mot. at 50–63. This
includes $2,887.50 reflecting time spent on actually establishing the guardianship, plus $1,250.00
annually to maintain the guardianship until 2035—an amount that would total $14,209.50. Id. at
57. To reach this figure, Ms. Shackleford has assumed $1,250.00 per year in fees, including
reviewing bank statements and preparing annual account. Id. She then has discounted this cost to
net present value, using a 1% discount rate for each year. Id. Adding the cost of each year together
totaled $14,209.50. Id.
Establishing a guardianship has been determined to be a legitimate cost associated with
some Vaccine Act claims (especially when a stipulated settlement requires it). Barrett v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-389V, 2014 WL 2505689 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2014).
And as noted in the Remand Order, the Federal Circuit has held that when state law imposes
guardianship maintenance expenses, petitioners should receive compensation for those expenses.
McCulloch v. Sec’y of health & Hum. Servs., 923 F.3d 998, 1003–04 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Because Petitioners will incur maintenance expenses under Arkansas law due to G.R.’s
vaccine-related injury compensation award, they are entitled to some sum for this category of cost,
and the requested amount is reasonable. Accordingly, all requested costs shall be awarded in full.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and in the exercise of the discretion afforded to me in determining
the propriety of a final fees award, I GRANT Petitioners’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs,
and award a total of $66,223.70, reflecting (a) $49,126.70 in attorney’s fees and costs, in the form
of a check made jointly payable to Petitioners and their attorney Ronald C. Homer, and (b)
$17,097.00 in costs personally incurred by Petitioners, in the form of a check made payable to
them.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01724-DAT Document 58 Filed 10/09/24 Page 5 of 5
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. 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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.
5