HARDIMAN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1846V
Filed: December 22, 2025
DEBORAH SUE HARDIMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Howard Scott Gold, Gold Law Firm, Wellesley, MA, for petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On November 28, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2
(“Vaccine Act”). (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleged that she suffered a significant
aggravation of transverse myelitis as a result of her October 27, 2014 influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. (Id.) On January 30, 2023, petitioner filed an amended petition alleging
that she suffered a significant aggravation of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder
(“NMOSD”) as a result of her October 27, 2014 flu vaccination. (ECF No. 80.) On
August 20, 2024, the undersigned issued a decision denying compensation. (ECF No.
84.) On March 20, 2025, petitioner filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs. (ECF No. 88.) Petitioner seeks $63,813.09, including $45,400.90 for
attorneys’ fees and $18,412.19 for attorneys’ costs. (Id. at 2, 6, 15.)
1 Because this document 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 document 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 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be to the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.
Special Master Horner
Case 1:17-vv-01846-UNJ Document 93 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Respondent filed his response on March 27, 2025. (ECF No. 89.) Respondent
defers to the court as to whether the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’
fees and costs have been met. (Id. at 2.) Noting the special master’s discretion
regarding attorneys’ fees and costs and cautioning that determination of fees “should
not result in a second major litigation” (Id. at 4 (quoting Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838
(2011))), “[r]espondent therefore respectfully requests that the Court exercise its
discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs” (Id.).
The undersigned has reviewed the billing records submitted with petitioner’s
request. (ECF No. 88, pp. 7-15.) In the undersigned’s experience, the request appears
reasonable overall, and the undersigned finds no cause to reduce the requested hours
or rates. Additionally, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 13(a)(3), “[t]he failure of respondent to
identify with particularity any objection to a request for attorney’s fees and costs may be
taken into consideration by the special master in the decision.” The costs also appear
to be reasonable and sufficiently documented. (ECF No. 88, pp. 6, 16-26.)
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
§ 300aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request, the undersigned
GRANTS petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum of $63,813.09,
representing reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, to be paid through an
ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel of record, Howard Scott Gold’s IOLTA
account for prompt disbursement.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
Case 1:17-vv-01846-UNJ Document 93 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 2