# Gonzales v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

> United States Court of Federal Claims · May 3, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10735429

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** May 3, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Herbrina Sanders
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10735429

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that services that are “primarily of a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys' fee rates”

## Opinion text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 12, 2024

*************************
CAROL JOAN GONZALES, * No. 20-140V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*************************
Michael S. Kolker, Otorowski Morrow & Golden, PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On February 10, 2020, Carol Joan Gonzales (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34
(2012). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 12, 2017,
caused her to suffer from “injuries[] including hand injuries and finger paralysis[.]” Pet. at 1, ECF
No. 1. On November 1, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation for award. ECF No. 34. I issued a
Decision awarding damages consistent with the stipulation on November 30, 2022. ECF No. 35.

On January 9, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for final attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r’s
Mot. for Final Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [hereinafter “Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC”], ECF No. 40.
Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $64,363.38, representing
$35,142.10 in attorneys’ fees3 and $29,221.28 in attorneys’ costs. Declaration ¶ 8, ECF No. 41.
Pursuant to General Order No. 9, Petitioner has indicated that she has not incurred any personal
expenses as a result of this claim. Id. ¶ 3. Respondent filed his response on January 12, 2023,
stating that he “is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are

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
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
3
This amount includes $15,893.60 in attorney’s fees, $18,490.00 in paralegal fees, $233.50 for
“[a]nticipated [a]ttorney [t]ime[,]” and $525.00 for “[a]nticipated [p]aralegal [t]ime[.]” Declaration ¶ 8.
met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, ECF No. 43. Respondent requested “that the Court exercise
its discretion and determine a reasonable amount for attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 3. Petitioner
did not file a reply. This matter is now ripe for consideration.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by
‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly
rate.’” Id. at 1347–48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may
make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on
specific findings. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348.

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 indicate 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). Such applications, however,
should not include hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3
F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. 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. Petitioners in the Program bear the burden of providing adequate
evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

A. Hourly Rate

The decision in 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 & Hum. 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, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 can be accessed online.4

Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel, Mr. Michael
Kolker: $413.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $431.00 per hour for work performed in
2020, $453.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, and $467.00 per hour for work performed in
2022. Declaration ¶ 5(a). Petitioner also requested the following rates for the work of her counsel’s

4
The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: http://www.cofc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly rates
contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch. See 2015 WL 5634323.

2
paralegals: $155.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $160.00 per hour for work performed
in 2020, $170.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, and $175.00 per hour for work performed
in 2022. Id. ¶ 5(c).

I find Mr. Kolker’s requested rates commensurate with his experience. Although he has
little experience in the Program,5 his curriculum vitae indicates that he had thirty-seven years of
experience practicing law when beginning work on this case in 2019. See ECF No. 41-2. The
highest rates in the OSM fee schedules, for attorneys with more than thirty-one years of experience
in practice, are generally reserved for attorneys with significant experience in the Program, and
Mr. Kolker instead appropriately requested rates for attorneys with twenty to thirty years in
practice for each year he performed work in this case. The requested rates for Mr. Kolker’s
paralegals for 2019 and 2020 are consistent with what his firm’s paralegals have previously been
awarded for their Vaccine Program work. M.A. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-103V,
2020 WL 7054287, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 28, 2020). They do not have established rates
for 2021 and 2022, but the requested rates are consistent with the 2021 and 2022 OSM fee
schedules. I therefore find the rates requested for Petitioner’s counsel and counsel’s paralegals
reasonable.

B. Reasonable Number of Hours

Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Billing for administrative tasks is not appropriate. See
Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (stating that services that are “primarily of
a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead office costs included
within the attorneys' fee rates”); see also Isom v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 94-770, 2001
WL 101459, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 17, 2001) (agreeing with Respondent that tasks such
as filing and photocopying are subsumed under overhead expenses); Walters v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2022 WL 1077311, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2022) (failing
to award fees for the review of CM/ECF notifications and the organization of the file); McCulloch,
2015 WL 5634323, at *26 (noting that clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all,
regardless of who performs them).

Upon review of the submitted billing records, I find the time billed somewhat excessive
for the work performed in this case. Mr. Kolker routinely overbilled for time spent reviewing Court
orders and filings. For instance, on February 26, 2020, Mr. Kolker billed .2 hours for reviewing a
notice of reassignment, which was a one-sentence-long document. ECF No. 41-1 at 2; ECF No.
10. On March 4, 2020, and on November 21, 2021, he billed .25 hours each for reviewing a notice
of appearances, which were each two sentences long. ECF No. 41-1 at 2–3; ECF Nos. 12, 27. On
October 8, 2020, he billed .75 hours for reviewing the one-paragraph statutory 240-day notice.
ECF No. 41-1 at 2; ECF No. 14. On November 24, 2020, he billed .5 hours for reviewing a one-
sentence non-PDF scheduling Order. ECF No. 41-1 at 2; Scheduling Order, docketed November
24, 2020. On February 11, 2022, he billed .4 hours for reviewing a one-sentence non-PDF order
granting Petitioner’s motion for extension of time. ECF No. 41-1 at 3; Order, docketed Feb. 11,

5
He appears to have had one prior case in the Program in 2011. See Emmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 11-211V, 2011 WL 5299382 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 29, 2011).

3
2022. On April 19, 2022, he billed .2 hours for reviewing Petitioner’s own electronic filing. ECF
No. 41-1 at 3. Furthermore, Mr. Kolker’s paralegals routinely billed for administrative/secretarial
tasks. They billed a total of five hours for filing documents; more than eight hours for
“[d]ownload[ing], [r]eview[ing], and [p]rocess[ing]” notices of electronic filing and documents
from CM/ECF; more than two hours for downloading and verifying copies of Petitioner’s own
CM/ECF filings; and seven hours for preparing hard copies of documents to send to Respondent.
See ECF No. 41-1 at 5–9. They also billed seventeen hours to “[p]repare, [r]edact: [c]ertified
[m]edical [r]ecords for [e]xhibits[.]” See id. However, billing for redacting records is not
reasonable because filings in the Program are restricted, and the Supplement to the Vaccine Rules
regarding electronic filing procedures specifically states that “[a]ll documents, including medical
records, should be filed in their original form.” Supp. Vaccine Rule IX.

Petitioner requests $233.50 for “[a]nticipated [a]ttorney [t]ime” and $525.00 for
“[a]nticipated [p]aralegal [t]ime.” Declaration ¶ 8. Petitioner requested these fees “to address
issues after filing of this motion, including: confirmation of all disbursements, preparation of the
potential filing of a Joint Decision not to Seek Review, and potential correspondence with . . .
Respondent and [Petitioner].” Id. ¶¶ 6–7. However, “[i]t is well-established in the Vaccine
Program that a claimant ‘is not entitled to recover any and all costs that may be incurred in the
future, regardless of the reason for the expenditure.’” Sparkman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-1917V, 2023 WL 3410644, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 12, 2023) (quoting Crespo v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. 231, 236 (2018)).

Because the Program does not reimburse future fees not yet incurred, I will deduct these
fees from the total amount of fees requested by Petitioner, bring the total amount of fees requested
to $34,383.60. I find that the other issues described above result in a reasonable deduction of ten
percent, or $3,438.36. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$30,945.24.

C. Attorney Costs
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 $29,221.28 in attorneys’ costs. Declaration ¶ 8. This is comprised of costs for acquiring
medical records, Petitioner’s filing fee, mailing expenses, an initial expert case evaluation, an
expert referral service, expert reports, and binders and dividers. See ECF Nos. 41-2–41-3.
Petitioner has provided documentation of most of these expenses, and some appear reasonable for
the work performed in this case. However, some deductions are necessary.
1. Expert Reports
Petitioner requests $22,950.00 for the work of her expert, Viktoriya Irodenko, M.D., who
provided two expert reports in this case. See ECF No. 41-2 at 8–9. Dr. Irodenko charged $900.00
per hour for her work. Id. She billed 19.5 hours for her work on her first expert report and six hours
for work on her supplemental report, and she billed for tasks including review of records, research,
and report writing. Id. Although the number of hours Dr. Irodenko expended appears reasonable
for the work performed in this case, her hourly rate of $900.00 per hour is significantly higher than
what experts are typically awarded in the Program.

4
In the Program, “[f]ees for experts are subject to the same reasonableness standard as fees
for attorneys for attorneys.” E.g., M.A., 2020 WL 7054287, at *3. It is Petitioner’s “burden [to]
substantiat[e] an expert’s hours and the rate requested.” E.g., Kantor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 01-679V, 2007 WL 1032378, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 21, 2007); Caves v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 111 Fed. Cl. 774, 779 (2013). The Court of Federal Claims has
stated:
In determining the appropriate compensation for experts, a special master may
consider the following factors: (1) [T]he witness’ area of expertise; (2) the
education and training required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the
prevailing rates for other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature,
quality and complexity of the [information] provided; (5) the cost of living in the
particular geographic area; and (6) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the
[Special Master] in balancing the interests implicated by the [Vaccine Act].
Frantz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 146 Fed. Cl. 137, 145 (2019) (quoting Wilcox v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-991V, 1997 WL 101572, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 14, 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In her first expert report, filed on July 12, 2021, Dr. Irodenko stated that she is a licensed
physician and is board-certified in neurology, neuromuscular medicine, and
neuroelectrophysiology. Pet’r’s Ex. 17 at 1, ECF No. 22. She noted that she had treated more than
thirty-five patients with acute brachial neuritis over the five years preceding her expert report,
including patients with vaccine-caused brachial neuritis. Id. However, Dr. Irodenko noted that she
does “not have any publications about the topic pertinent to this case.” Id. She wrote that she was
working with a colleague at University of California, San Francisco (“UCSF”) “to start a novel
Multidisciplinary Brachial Neuritis Clinic” and that she expected to “have an active role in this
clinic . . . .” Id. She noted that she had testified three times in medical-legal matters in the past five
years. Id. Dr. Irodenko’s curriculum vitae (“CV”), filed on June 9, 2021, states that she received
her medical degree in 1997 at Ivano-Franklvsk National Medical University in Ukraine. Pet’r’s
Ex. 16 at 1, ECF No. 21-1. She completed a one-year residency in Ukraine between 1997 and 1998
before completing an internship at Medical Center of Central Georgia between 2001 and 2002, a
residency in neurology at Baylor College of Medine between 2002 and 2005, and a clinical
fellowship in neuromuscular disorders and clinical neurophysiology at UCSF from 2005 to 2006.
Id. She received her medical license in California in 2005, and she has been board-certified in
neurology since 2008 and in neuromuscular medicine since 2012. Id. She has also been certified
by the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine since 2010. Id.
Dr. Irodenko joined the faculty of UCSF School of Medicine as a clinical instructor in 2006, and
she has been a full professor since 2019. Id. at 2. She has been the director of the EMG laboratory
and a staff physician in neurology at the San Francisco VA Medical Center since 2006 and the
director of the San Francisco VA Medical Center’s neuromuscular program since 2007. Id. at 2.
She became the director of the hospital’s multidisciplinary ALS center in 2015, the director of a
neuromuscular fellowship program in 2016, and the director of the neurophysiology section in
2017. Id.
I find that Petitioner has not met her burden to establish that a rate of $900.00 per hour for
Dr. Irodenko’s work is reasonable. The two reports Dr. Irodenko submitted in this case are
relatively brief and uncomplicated when compared to expert reports often filed in the Program.

5
See generally Pet’r’s Ex. 17; ECF No. 29-1.6 She does not appear to have prior experience in the
Program, and she acknowledged that she does not have publications regarding the injury involved
in this case. Furthermore, other neurologists located in similar areas and with more extensive
experience are typically awarded significantly less for their Vaccine Program work. For instance,
Dr. Lawrence Steinman, a Stanford University neurology professor with additional specialty in
neuroimmunology, more than forty years of experience as a physician, and extensive experience
in the Program, who is also based in the Bay Area, has typically been awarded an hourly rate of
$500.00 to $550.00 for his Program work. See, e.g., Langley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 17-837V, 2023 WL 7221461, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 7, 2023) (granting $500.00 per
hour for Dr. Steinman’s work); Morrison v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-386V, 2023
WL 1873254, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 10, 2023) (granting $550.00 per hour for work Dr.
Steinman performed in 2021 and 2022). It is unclear why Dr. Irodenko should be awarded a
significantly higher rate. In fact, while “several neurologists have previously been awarded
$500.00 per hour, such a rate is typically reserved for experts who not only possess top of the line
credentials, but also have extensive Vaccine Program experience.” Finkelstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 19-212V, 2022 WL 3135918, at *2–3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 1, 2022)
(reducing an expert neurologist’s hourly rate from $500.00 to $450.00 based on “his credentials
and the quality of his work product[,]” as well as his lack of experience in the Program). Even
neurologists with extensive Program experience and noteworthy credentials, such as Dr. Carlo
Tornatore, whose experience includes a professorship of neurology at Georgetown University
Medical Center and a vice chairmanship of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital’s neurology
department, are typically awarded less than $500.00 per hour. See, e.g., Abbott v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 14-907V, 2020 WL 8766524, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 4, 2020) (noting
that Dr. Tornatore “typically receives $400 per hour”); Jones v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 15-1239V, 2019 WL 7496602, at *4–5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 20, 2019) (reducing Dr.
Tornatore’s hourly rate from $500.00 per hour to $400.00 per hour for work performed from 2015
to 2017 and to $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2018 “in recognition of the overall work
he has provided for the Vaccine Program[]” and his work in the case).
The evidence submitted demonstrates that Dr. Irodenko is qualified to opine in this case,
but her work in this case, qualifications, and experience do not warrant a significantly elevated
rate, or the rates typically reserved for experts with extraordinary credentials and experience.
Based on the evidence submitted as well as the rates awarded to other neurologists in the Program
and inflation, I find that a reasonable hourly rate for Dr. Irodenko’s work in this case is $450.00
per hour. Accordingly, I will reduce Petitioner’s reward by $11,475.00.
2. Initial Expert Evaluation
Petitioner requests $400.00 for an “[i]nitial [c]ase [e]valuation” by Jerome E. Carbone,
M.D. ECF No. 41-3 at 2. The billing records submitted show that Dr. Carbone billed for four hours
of “[r]ecord review/analysis” at a rate of $100.00 per hour on March 28 and 29, 2019.7 ECF No.
41-2. However, this record is not sufficiently detailed to indicate the nature of the work Dr.
Carbone performed or whether it was necessary to further this case. Furthermore, the billing

6
Petitioner did not label her second expert report with an exhibit number.
7
Dr. Carbone also billed $600.00 for work performed on April 5, 2019, but Petitioner redacted the title of
the service performed and the description of that service. ECF No. 41-2 at 5. Petitioner has not requested
reimbursement for this $600.00 charge.

6
records indicate that Petitioner’s counsel’s office began preparing Petitioner’s client file on
January 7, 2019, and did not begin requesting records from Petitioner’s medical providers until
June 3, 2019. ECF No. 41-1 at 5. Thus, it is unclear what documents Dr. Carbone would have
reviewed in March of 2019. Dr. Carbone’s qualifications are also unclear. I will deduct this
$400.00 from Petitioner’s award.
3. Expert Referral Service
Petitioner requests $1,950.00 for a “[c]ase [e]valuation and [e]xpert [r]eferral” provided by
Elite Medical Expert. ECF No. 41-3 at 2. Petitioner contends that she contacted this company “to
identify and refer a specialized expert for the review in this matter[]” because of “the specific
neurological injury” alleged in this case. Declaration ¶ 4(a)(i). However, Petitioner has failed to
persuasively identify why this service was necessary in this case. Although Petitioner contends
that she used this service due to her “specific neurological injury[,]” neurologists frequently serve
as experts in the Program and opine on a variety of neurological conditions. In a previous case, the
special master found that costs for an expert referral service were unnecessary for this reason.
Halcrow v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-212V, 2021 WL 4199921, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Aug. 10, 2021). The special master reasoned that such a service “might be necessary to
obtain an expert in a more niche field of medicine,” but she did not find it necessary to find an
expert neurologist or immunologist. Id. The special master noted that “a more practical solution
would have been to reach out to their colleagues at the Vaccine Injured Petitioners Bar Association
to inquire if other attorneys could recommend a medical expert with the requisite experience given
the facts of the [ ] case.” Id. She awarded 25% of the cost as a courtesy, but she advised that future
unnecessary costs would not be reimbursed. Id. Although Petitioner has not presented persuasive
evidence that this service was necessary, I will similarly award 25% of this cost as a courtesy given
Petitioner’s counsel’s limited experience in the Program. Accordingly, I will reduce Petitioner’s
award by $1,462.50.
4. Office Supplies
Petitioner requests $194.50 for binders and dividers used to provide documents to
Respondent and Dr. Irodenko. ECF No. 41-3. However, “[n]ormal overhead costs like office
supplies[] . . . are not compensable by the [P]rogram.” E.g., Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 08-650V, 2019 WL 2500417, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2019) (denying
reimbursement for office supplies, including binders CDs, and notepads). Furthermore, Petitioner
has not provided receipts for these purchases. Instead, she filed search results from Staples.com to
demonstrate how much the items might typically cost. See ECF No. 41-2 at 30–34. I will therefore
deduct this amount from Petitioner’s award.
Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs in the amount of $15,689.28.
II. Conclusion
Petitioner’s motion is hereby GRANTED. In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(e), the undersigned has reviewed the billing records and costs in this case and finds
that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs, other than the reductions delineated above, is
reasonable. Based on the above analysis, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate
Petitioner and her counsel as follows:

7
Attorneys’ Fees Requested $35,142.10
(Reduction to Fees) - ($4,196.86)
Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $30,945.24

Attorneys’ Costs Requested $29,221.28
(Reduction of Costs) - ($13,532.00)
Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded $15,689.28

Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs $46,634.52

Accordingly, the undersigned awards a lump sum in the amount of $46,634.52 to be issued
in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Michael Kolker,
for final attorneys’ fees and costs.

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 the above Decision.8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master

8
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

8

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10735429. Public record. Not legal advice.