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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: July 28, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JODY MADALA, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 19-1182V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Heather Marie Schneider, The Locks Law Firm, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1
On August 13, 2019, Jody Madala (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine
Injury Program 2 alleging that she suffered from acute renal failure and/or Goodpasture’s
syndrome as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 11, 2016. Petition
at Preamble (ECF No. 1). On May 29, 2024, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing
Petitioner’s case. Decision dated May 29, 2024 (ECF No. 115).
1
Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,
the undersigned is required to post it 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, the undersigned agrees that the
identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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 Injury 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.
1
On November 25, 2024, Petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs,
followed by an amendment of costs on June 23, 2025. Petitioner’s Motion for Fees and Costs
(“Pet. Mot.”), filed Nov. 25, 2024 (ECF No. 118); Pet. Mot. to Amend and Correct (“Pet. Am.
Costs”), filed June 23, 2025 (ECF No. 120). Petitioner requests compensation in the following
amount:
Attorneys’ Fees: $51,377.50
Attorneys’ Costs: $30,348.91
Petitioner thus requests a total of $81,726.41. Respondent filed a response on December
6, 2024, stating he “defers to the court regarding whether the statutory requirements for an award
of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Respondent’s Response to Pet. Mot. (“Resp.
Response”), filed Dec. 6, 2024, at 2 (ECF No. 119). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s
motion and awards a total of $67,492.52.
I. DISCUSSION
Under the Vaccine Act, the special master shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs for any petition that results in an award of compensation. § 15(e)(1). When compensation
is not awarded, the special master “may” award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “if the
special master or court determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a
reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Id. In this case, although the
petition was eventually dismissed, the undersigned is satisfied that the case possessed both good
faith and reasonable basis throughout its pendency. Respondent also has not advanced any
argument that the claim lacked good faith or reasonable basis. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled
to a final award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
A. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees
The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515
F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Using the lodestar approach, a court first determines “an
initial estimate of a reasonable attorney’s fee by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-58 (quoting Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Then, the court may make an upward or downward
departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on other specific findings. Id. at
1348.
Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing
records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the
name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed.
Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are
“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3
F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is
2
“well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her]
experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the
special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent
and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009).
A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of a petitioner’s fee
application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl.
719, 729 (2011). Special masters may rely on their experience with the Vaccine Program and its
attorneys to determine the reasonable number of hours expended. Wasson v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 1991), rev’d on other grounds & aff’d in
relevant part, 988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Just as “[t]rial courts routinely use their prior
experience to reduce hourly rates and the number of hours clamed in attorney fee requests . . .
[v]accine program special masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee
application.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521.
i. Reasonable Hourly Rates
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her attorneys: for Ms.
Heather Schneider, $350.00 per hour for work performed from 2022 through 2024; for Mr. Jerry
Lindheim, $550.00 per hour for work performed from 2017 through 2022; and for Mr. Timothy
Burke, $325.00 per hour for work performed from 2019 through 2022. For the following
reasons, the undersigned finds these rates require adjustment.
First, Ms. Schneider’s flat rate of $350.00 per hour requires adjustment. According to her
firm’s website, she graduated law school in 2017 and began working at The Locks Law Firm in
2019. It appears Ms. Schneider has minimal vaccine experience. See Decastro v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1973V, 2025 WL 1927576, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 17,
2025) (noting no prior decision awarding Ms. Schneider’s rates). As such, in accordance with
the OSM Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedule, 3 the undersigned finds the following
hourly rates and reductions reasonable and appropriate:
Year Rate Awarded Reduction in Rate Hours Amount Reduced
2022 $275.00 $75.00 31.7 $2,377.50
2023 $290.00 $60.00 10.6 $636.00
2024 $305.00 $45.00 3.6 $162.00
Total Reduction $3,175.50
As to Mr. Lindheim, the undersigned notes his rate of $550.00 per hour has previously
been rejected and requires adjustment. See Decastro, 2025 WL 1927576, at *2. Mr. Lindheim
has previously been awarded $382.50 for work performed in 2017, $400.00 for work performed
in 2018, $425.00 for work performed in 2019, $445.00 for work performed in 2020, and $465.00
3
The fee schedules are available at: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-
hourly-rate-fee-schedules.
3
per hour for work performed in 2021. Id.; Halverson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-
227V, 2021 WL 2768339, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 25, 2021); Nocille v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0810V, 2022 WL 2827482, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16,
2022). The undersigned finds no reason to deviate from these rates. As for Mr. Lindheim’s
2022 rate, the undersigned finds a rate of $485.00 reasonable and appropriate. This results in the
following reductions:
Year Rate Awarded Reduction in Rate Hours Amount Reduced
2017 $382.50 $167.50 13.2 $2,211.00
2018 $400.00 $150.00 4.1 $615.00
2019 $425.00 $125.00 9.6 $1,200.00
2020 $445.00 $105.00 9.9 $1,039.50
2021 $465.00 $85.00 11.0 $935.00
2022 $485.00 $65.00 7.7 $500.50
Total Reduction $6,501.00
And lastly, as to Mr. Burke, the undersigned notes Mr. Burke’s flat rate of $325.00 has
also been rejected previously and requires adjustment. See Decastro, 2025 WL 1927576, at *2;
Nocille, 2022 WL 2827482, at *2. He has previously been awarded $230.00 per hour for work
performed in 2019, $260.00 per hour for work performed in 2020, and $275.00 per hour for work
performed in 2021. Nocille, 2022 WL 2827482, at *2. Again, the undersigned finds no reason
to deviate from these rates, and will similarly reduce Mr. Burke’s rates for work performed in
these years. For his 2022 rate, the undersigned finds $300.00 per hour to be a reasonable and
appropriate rate. This results in the following reductions:
Year Rate Awarded Reduction in Rate Hours Amount Reduced
2019 $230.00 $95.00 10.7 $1,016.50
2020 $260.00 $65.00 3.0 $195.00
2021 $275.00 $50.00 1.1 $55.00
2022 $300.00 $25.00 0.6 $15.00
Total Reduction $1,281.50
Overall, the rate reductions result in a total reduction of $10,958.00. 4
ii. Reasonable Hours Expended
In reducing an award of fees, the goal is to achieve rough justice, and therefore a special
master may take into account their overall sense of a case and may use estimates when reducing
an award. See Florence v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-255V, 2016 WL 6459592, at
*5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011)). It is well
established that an application for fees and costs must sufficiently detail and explain the time
billed so that a special master may determine, from the application and the case file, whether the
4
$3,175.50 + $6,501.00 +$1,281.50 = $10,958.00.
4
amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760
(1989); Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-559V, 2009 WL 2568468 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2009). Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and costs
claimed. Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468 at *8.
The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing entries and finds reductions
necessary for the following reasons.
First, Mr. Lindheim and Ms. Schneider engaged in excessive billing practices. Mr.
Lindheim billed 4.0 hours for “Review VAERS report” on March 15, 2018. Pet. Mot. at 2.
Ms. Schneider billed 3.0 hours for “Review VAERS report” on May 5, 2022. Id. at 9. The
VAERS report is less than two pages in length and mostly consists of Petitioner’s personal
information (i.e., name, date, contact information) and pharmacy/vaccine administrator
information. See Pet. Ex. 9. The “Adverse Event & Event Outcomes” section contains less
than 10 lines of information. See id. There is no explanation as to why these attorneys needed
a total of seven hours to read a less than two page document.
Next, Mr. Lindheim also billed his full rate for “Travel to meet client” on June 27,
2017. Pet. Mot. at 2. Time spent traveling when no other work was being performed is
typically compensated at one-half the applicable hourly rate. See, e.g., Hocraffer v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-533V, 2011 WL 3705153, at *24 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 25,
2011); Rodriguez, 2009 WL 2568468, at *21; English v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
01-61V, 2006 WL 3419805, at *12-13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2006).
Additionally, Mr. Lindheim, Mr. Burke, and Ms. Schneider billed for paralegal tasks at
an attorney rate. 5 Attorneys may be compensated for paralegal-level work, but only at a rate that
is comparable to what would be paid for a paralegal. See, e.g., Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010)
(citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989)); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 02-10V, 2016 WL 720969, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016); Riggins. v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *20-21 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. June 15, 2009); Turpin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-535V, 2008 WL
5747914, at *5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 23, 2008). This is not a new issue to counsel. See,
e.g., Nocille, 2022 WL 2827482, at *2.
5
For example, Mr. Lindheim billed for “receive and review” of “Notice of Designation of
Electronic Case,” “Order directing HHS entry of appearance,” “case assignment,” “HHS Entry
of Appearance,” “Case Reassignment Order,” and “Notice of Reassignment.” Pet. Mot. at 2-3.
Mr. Burke, for example, billed for “Phone call with Walgreens re required request procedures
and status of record request” and “Phone call with CIOX re required request procedures and
status of record request.” Id. at 7. And Ms. Schneider, for example, billed for “Receive and
review Minute Entry.” Id. at 10. This is not an exhaustive list.
5
Lastly, Mr. Lindheim, Mr. Burke, and Ms. Schneider billed for non-compensable tasks
(e.g., preparing and filing documents). 6 It is well known in the Vaccine Program that billing for
some administrative tasks, even at a paralegal rate, is not permitted. See, e.g., 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”); Paul v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1221V, 2023 WL
1956423, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 13, 2023) (“Clerical and secretarial tasks should not be
billed at all, regardless of who performs them.”). The preparation of records and exhibits for
filing has repeatedly been deemed administrative and thus noncompensable. See, e.g., Wallace
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1074V, 2018 WL 6977489, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov. 19, 2018) (noting the preparation of medical records an administrative and noncompensable
task); Phelan ex rel. A.P. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1366V, 2025 WL 1453777,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 30, 2025) (same).
For the above-mentioned reasons, the undersigned finds a reduction necessary and
appropriate here. A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of a petitioner’s
fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 729. It is “well within the
special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and
judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1522. In exercising that
discretion, special masters may reduce the number of hours submitted by a percentage of the
amount charged so long as a “concise but clear” justification for the reduction is provided.
Abbott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 135 Fed. Cl. 107,111 (2017). Special masters need
not explain how many hours are appropriate. Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 129
Fed. Cl. 691, 702 (2016). “It would be unreasonable, however, to expect the Special Master to
explain how each individual entry affected [her] final calculation, as in conducting fee
determinations tribunals ‘need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade
accountants.’” Abbott, 135 Fed. Cl. at 112 (quoting Fox, 563 U.S. at 838).
6
For example, see Mr. Lindheim’s entries dated August 16, 2019 (billing one hour for “Prepare
and file Petitioner’s Notice of Filing of Medical Records P1 through P9 in support Petition”);
August 28, 2019 (billing 0.2 hours for “Prepare and file Motion to Strike Notice of Filing of
Medical Records Included in Petition”); September 3, 2019 (billing 0.5 hours for “Prepare and
File Notice of Filing Medical Records”). Pet. Mot. at 3. For Mr. Burke, see, for example, entries
dated August 9, 2019 (billing 2.5 hours for “organize exhibits to file,” in part); August 13, 2019
(billing 3.0 hours for “File petition and prepared paper copy with all organized exhibits to be
served HHS”). Id. at 7. And for Ms. Schneider, see, for example, entries dated March 11, 2022
(billing 0.3 hours for “Prepare and file Full Article by Watanabe, T.”); March 14, 2022 (billing
0.6 hours for “Prepare documentation for Dr. Davidson’s review”); April 4, 2022 (billing 0.8
hours for “Prepare and file additional medical records and updated exhibit list” and “Prepare and
file Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time”); June 3, 2022 (billing 0.2 hours for “Prepare and
file Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time”); August 2, 2022 (billing for “Prepare and file
Motion for Extension of Time”); May 2, 2024 (billing 0.3 hours for “Prepare and file additional
documentation”). These lists are not exhaustive.
6
Given the number of issues with counsel’s billing entries, the undersigned finds a
percentage reduction of 2% appropriate. This results in a further reduction of $808.39. 7
B. Reasonable Attorneys’ Costs
Petitioner requests costs of $30,348.91, which represents costs related to medical records
and expert fees from Dr. Gourang Patel, Dr. Carl Goldstein, and Dr. Dennis Kim. The
undersigned finds the costs well-documented.
Dr. Patel’s requested rate of $350.00 per hour has previously been accepted, and as such
the undersigned will award his expert fees in full. See Halverson, 2021 WL 2768339, at *5.
However, Dr. Goldstein’s and Dr. Kim’s rates have not yet been determined.
Dr. Goldstein is a board-certified nephrologist. Pet. Ex. 30 at 4. He charged a rate of
$495.00 per hour, which the undersigned finds reasonable and in accordance with what other
nephrologists have been awarded. See, e.g., Tejeda v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
525V, 2023 WL 2424896 at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 9, 2023) (awarding nephrologist
$500.00 per hour).
Dr. Kim billed $7,467.50 for 14.5 hours of work at a rate of $515.00 per hour. Petitioner
did not file a report from Dr. Kim, nor is there an explanation of his background and
qualifications. 8 Furthermore, it does not appear that Dr. Kim has testified previously in the
Vaccine Program. Therefore, the undersigned cannot assess his credentials or credibility. As
such, the undersigned finds a reduction of his bill appropriate. The undersigned finds $5,000.00
to be appropriate for an expert who did not provide an expert report in this matter, resulting in a
reduction of $2,467.50. 9 In making to this finding, the undersigned does not endorse a rate of
$515.00 per hour for Dr. Kim given the lack of information and knowledge of his work product
and credentials.
II. CONCLUSION
Based on all the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate
Petitioner and her counsel as follows:
Requested Attorneys’ Fees: $51,377.50
Reduction of Attorneys’ Fees: - $11,766.39
Awarded Attorneys’ Fees: $39,611.11
7
($51,377.50 - $10,958.00) x 0.02 = $808.39.
8
On review of the docket, Petitioner was seeking an expert report from an immunologist around
the time of Dr. Kim’s bill.
9
$7,467.50 - $5,000.00 = $2,467.50.
7
Requested Attorneys’ Costs: $30,348.91
Reduction of Attorneys’ Costs: - $2,467.50
Awarded Attorneys’ Costs: $27,881.41
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: $67,492.52
Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $67,492.52 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
Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this Decision. 10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
10
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
notice renouncing the right to seek review.
8