VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-02053
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-02053
Petitioner: ANGELA GORNOWICZ
Filed: 2017-12-28
Decided: 2026-03-16
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-05-19
Condition: relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 503573

AI-assisted case summary:
Angela Gornowicz filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 28, 2017, alleging that a Tdap vaccine administered on May 19, 2016, caused or significantly aggravated her relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The case involved extensive expert testimony and procedural motions, including a motion to strike expert testimony which was denied. Ultimately, the court issued a decision on interim attorneys' fees and costs. The decision awarded Angela Gornowicz $503,573.98 in attorneys' fees and costs, indicating that the case has proceeded to a stage where compensation is being awarded, though the final entitlement decision is not detailed in this specific filing.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-02053-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-18
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER (Originally filed: 07/22/2025) regarding 163 Order on Motion to Strike. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (aevw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: July 22, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ANGELA GORNOWICZ, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 17-2053V
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Stadelnikas, Mctlaw, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Dima Atiya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE1
On June 23, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to strike and objection to expert testimony
from Dr. Thomas Forsthuber. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike and Objection to Expert Testimony
(“Pet. Mot.”), filed June 23, 2025 (ECF No. 158). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion
to strike testimony is DENIED. Instead, the undersigned will allow Petitioner’s experts to file a
written response to the opinions offered by Dr. Forsthuber at the hearing, after which the
evidentiary record will be closed.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 28, 2017, Angela Gornowicz (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the
1 Because this Order 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 Order 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.
1

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 2 of 7
Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018).2 Petitioner alleges a diphtheria, tetanus,
pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine administered on May 19, 2016, caused or significantly aggravated
her relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 9, 13 (ECF No. 1).
On November 21, 2019, Petitioner filed an expert report and medical literature from
neurologist Dr. Andrew Goodman. Pet. Ex. 16. In 2020, Respondent subsequently filed expert
reports and accompanying medical literature from immunologist Dr. Thomas Forsthuber and
neurologist Dr. J. William Lindsey. Resp. Ex. A, C. On July 23, 2021, Petitioner filed a
supplemental report and accompanying medical literature from Dr. Goodman. Pet. Ex. 28. On
September 17, 2021, Respondent filed supplemental expert reports from Dr. Forsthuber and Dr.
Lindsey. Resp. Ex. E, F.
An entitlement hearing was initially set for September 21 and September 22, 2023.
Prehearing Order dated Mar. 17, 2022, at 1 (ECF No 75). On September 14, 2023, Respondent
filed a demonstrative exhibit prepared by Dr. Forsthuber and supporting literature. Resp. Ex. H-
L. On September 18, 2023, the undersigned granted Petitioner’s motion to stay the entitlement
hearing due to Respondent’s untimely medical articles and demonstrative exhibit. Order
Granting Motion for Stay of Hearing dated Sept. 18, 2023, at 1-2 (ECF No. 103).
On February 26, 2024, Petitioner filed an expert report and supporting literature from
neurologist Dr. Darin T. Okuda. Pet. Ex. 57. On June 3, 2024, Respondent filed supplemental
expert reports from Dr. Forsthuber and Dr. Lindsey. Resp. Ex. M, N. On August 19, 2024,
Petitioner filed supplemental expert reports from Dr. Goodman and Dr. Okuda. Pet. Exs. 73, 74.
After all expert reports had been filed, the undersigned rescheduled the entitlement hearing for
April 29 to May 1, 2025. Prehearing Order dated Aug. 20, 2024, at 1 (ECF No. 130).
An entitlement hearing was held on April 29 and April 30, 2025. Petitioner, Dr.
Goodman, Dr. Okuda, and Dr. Lindsey testified on April 29, 2025. Tr. 4-232. Dr. Forsthuber
testified on April 30, 2025. Tr. 237-418. At the hearing, Petitioner raised objections to the
scope of Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony. See, e.g., Tr. 420. The undersigned directed Petitioner to
file a motion within 30 days of the filing of the hearing transcript addressing the objections
relative to Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony and proposing remedies. Order dated May 1, 2025 (ECF
No. 153).
On June 23, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to strike. Pet. Mot. On July 3, 2025,
Respondent filed a response. Respondent’s Response to Pet. Mot. (“Resp. Response”), filed July
3, 2025 (ECF No. 162). Petitioner did not file a reply. Additionally, Petitioner requested a post-
hearing briefing scheduling following a decision on her motion. Joint Status Rept., filed July 1,
2025, at 1 (ECF No. 161).
This matter is ripe for adjudication.
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). All citations in this Ruling to individual sections of the
Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
2

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 3 of 7
II. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Petitioner’s contentions
Petitioner asserts that Dr. Forsthuber’s expert testimony offered new opinions and that he
testified outside the scope of his previous reports and medical literature. Pet. Mot. at 1.
Petitioner acknowledges that Vaccine Rules requires special masters to “consider all
relevant and reliable evidence governed by principles of fundamental fairness to both parties.”
Vaccine Rule 8(b)(1). Further, the special master must afford each party a full and fair
opportunity to present its case. Vaccine Rule 3(b)(2).
Petitioner asserts that “advanced notice of evidence and theories is particularly important
in the highly scientific or technical context such as the Vaccine Program. Pet. Mot. at 7 (quoting
Sumner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-946V, 2015 WL 5173644, at *16 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 13, 2015). Petitioner contends that it is fundamentally unfair and unfairly
prejudicial to Petitioner to allow testimony on previously undisclosed opinion into evidence. Id.
Accordingly, Petitioner moves to strike the following testimony from the record:
1. Tr. 243:1-21.
2. Tr. 246:20-251:25; Tr. 252:24-254:23. Petitioner's counsel objected on the record to
this line of question, claiming none of this testimony was contained in any of Dr.
Forsthuber's three expert reports or medical literature.
3. Tr. 255:25-256:12. Petitioner's counsel objected to the testimony as beyond the scope
of expert reports.
4. Tr. 263:1-19. Petitioner's counsel objected on the record that none of this testimony
appears in any of his reports.
5. Tr. 269: 21-25, Tr. 270:1-271:11. Petitioner's counsel objected to this testimony as
beyond the scope of his reports.
6. Tr. 280:10-18; Tr. 281:2-20. Petitioner's counsel objected to testimony relating to the
half-life of cytokines, which does not appear in the expert's three reports.
7. Tr. 311:9-25, Tr. 312:1-319:25. While Petitioner does not object the demonstrative
exhibit H, Petitioner objects to the line of testimony and new opinion, as Respondent's
expert had more than sufficient time to proffer his opinion and explanation of this exhibit,
prior to the second day of trial.
See id. at 9-10. Petitioner argues that the above testimony offered by Dr. Forsthuber went
“beyond the scope of his reports and the questions before him” and constituted “an unfair
surprise to Petitioner and her experts.” Id. at 10.
Petitioner further argues that Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony must be limited to general
immunological arguments as it would “be outside his expertise to opinion on issues of diagnosis,
specific causation and onset of disease/relapse.” Pet. Mot. at 11. Petitioner asserts that expert
testimony was limited or given less weight in circumstances were non-medical doctors offered
opinions on specific causation rather than general causation. Id. at 2-6; see Vizcarra v. Sec’y of
3

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 4 of 7
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-488V, 2023 WL 3451495, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 15,
2023) (limiting an expert immunologist holding a PhD to “opinions on the science behind
petitioner’s theory”); Koehn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-355V, 2013 WL 3214877
(Fed. Cl. May 30, 2013), aff’d, 773 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting an experts “could
decrease the value of his opinion for any of the Althen prongs); Isbell v. Sec’y of Health &Hum.
Servs., No. 95-340V, 2001 WL 826724, at *12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 1, 2001) (giving less
weight to non-medical expert opinion on clinical symptoms, an area outside of his expertise).
Petitioner requests the undersigned strike the above sections of Dr. Forsthuber’s
testimony or give the testimony less weight.3 Pet. Mot. at 11. In the alternative, Petitioner asks
that her experts be permitted to file a written response, limited to the new opinions offered, after
which the evidentiary record be closed. Id.
B. Respondent’s contentions
Respondent contends that Dr. Forsthuber a highly respected expert who is qualified to
testify to Althen prong one. Resp. Response at 2. Respondent notes that Petitioner did not
object to Dr. Forsthuber’s qualifications at the hearing. Id. at 3.
Respondent distinguishes the caselaw relied upon by Petitioner in support of exclusion of
evidence from the present case on the basis that Vizcarra, Koehn, and Isbell, all deal with an
issues of non-medical doctors opining on diagnosis. Resp. Response at 2-4. Respondent notes
diagnosis is not at issue in the present case and Dr. Forsthuber deferred to the clinical experts on
issues of diagnosis at the hearing. See id. Further, Respondent notes that Dr. Forsthuber
maintained his medical license in from 1996 until 2016. Id. at 2.
Respondent contends that identified sections of the hearing transcript constitute
foundational testimony for Dr. Forsthuber’s opinions and foundational testimony regarding the
underlying function of the immune system (Tr. 243:1-21; Tr. 246:20-251:25; Tr. 252:24-254:23;
Tr. 255:25-256:12) or consisted of testimony related to his previous three written reports (Tr.
263:1-19; Tr. 280:10-18; Tr. 281:2-20). Resp. Response at 7-8. Additionally, Respondent notes
that Petitioner did not object at the hearing to certain testimony that she now seeks to exclude
(Tr. 311:9-25, Tr. 312:1-319:25). Id. at 8. Further, Respondent argues that the testimony related
to demonstrative exhibit H was permissible and Respondent had no requirement to reference
demonstrative exhibit H in the written expert reports. Id. at 8-9.
Finally, Respondent argues that even if Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony was improperly
introduced, striking his testimony is an extreme and disfavored remedy. Resp. Response at 9.
Respondent notes that the procedural rules of the Vaccine Program favor broad inclusion of
evidence. Id. at 6. Finally, Respondent asserts that the typical practice in Vaccine Program is
for special masters to weigh expert testimony rather than exclude expert testimony. Id. at 5
(citing Garcia v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 05-0720V, 2010 WL 2507793, at *6 n.7
3 The undersigned does not make any finding on the question of what weight to afford Dr.
Forsthuber’s testimony in this Order.
4

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 5 of 7
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 19, 2010) (“where an expert’s methodology is at least generally
aligned with accepted scientific method, his conclusions are weighed on probative merit; they are
not excluded, even if the factfinder may consider his testimony to be less persuasive than that of
the other party’s expert.”)).
Respondent did not raise any specific objections to Petitioner’s experts filing written
responses to Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony.
III. DISCUSSION
A special master must “afford[] each party a full and fair opportunity to present its case.”
Vaccine Rule 3(b)(2). Vaccine Rule 8(b)(1) provides that “[i]n receiving evidence, the special
master will not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence but must consider all
relevant and reliable evidence governed by principles of fundamental fairness to both parties.”
This rule echoes the statutory requirement that a “special master . . . shall consider . . . all []
relevant medical and scientific evidence contained in the record.” § 13(b)(1). Together, Vaccine
Rule 8 and § 13 “direct[] the special master to consider all relevant and reliable evidence,
unencumbered by traditional rules of admissibility, while being guided by principles of fairness.”
Hazelhurst v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 604 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
Vaccine Act further mandates “flexible and informal standards of admissibility of evidence.” §
12(d)(2)(B).
Although the Vaccine Rules do not specifically include a mechanism for a motion to
strike testimony, Vaccine Rule 1 provides that for any matter not specifically addressed by the
Vaccine Rules, the special master may regulate applicable practice consistent with the rules and
the purpose of the Vaccine Act. Vaccine Rule 1(b). Vaccine Rule 1 also provides that the Rules
of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) may apply to the extent they are consistent with the
Vaccine Rules. Vaccine Rule 1(c).
The Court of Federal Claims has found that at a hearing, when an expert attempts to
present an opinion not disclosed before the hearing, the opposing party may seek to strike that
testimony.4 Childers v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 486, 596-99 (2013) (granting motion to
strike testimony). Under RCFC 26(a)(2)(B)(i), an expert report must contain “a complete
statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” The Court
of Federal Claims explained “expert reports must be ‘detailed and complete’” and “[a] complete
report must include the substance of the testimony which an expert is expected to give on direct
examination together with the reasons therefor.” Id. at 597 (quoting Salgado v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 150 F.3d 735, 741 n.6 (7th Cir. 1998)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee’s note.
Additionally, “[t]he report must be complete such that opposing counsel is not forced to depose
an expert in order to avoid ambush at trial.” Id. (quoting Salgado, 150 F.3d at 741 n.6).
4 The Federal Circuit has noted a “special master can order the experts to confine their testimony
to the issues addressed in their reports.” Simanksi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 671 F.3d
1368, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The undersigned directed Dr. Forsthuber to confine his testimony
to issues addressed in his reports at the entitlement hearing. See, e.g., Tr. 271-72.
5

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 6 of 7
According to RCFC 37(c)(1), “[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a
witness . . . , the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a
motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”
Courts applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure counterparts5 have found exclusion
mandatory “unless the offending party can show that its violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) was
either justified or harmless.” Childers, 116 Fed. Cl. at 598 (quoting Scott Timber, Inc. v. United
States, 93 Fed. Cl. 221, 226 (2010)).
In Vaccine Program cases, however, “exclusion from the record is an exceptional
remedy, and should only be applied by the Court where the material sought to be excluded is so
unreliable, it patently forfeits every trace of being helpful to the Court’s consideration of the
facts of the case.” Veryzer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-522V, 2010 WL 2507791,
at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2010). “Advance notice of evidence and theories is
particularly important in a highly scientific or technical context such as the Vaccine Program,
where an adequate response to new information may require additional scientific research and
evaluation.” Sumner, 2015 WL 5173644, at *16. Yet, “[t]he Vaccine Rules favor broad
inclusion, and ‘the probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses . . . are
matters within the purview of the fact finder.’” R.K. v. Sec’y of Health v. Hum. Servs., No. 03-
0632V, 2015 WL 10911950, at *36 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2016) (quoting Munn v. Sec’y
of Health v. Hum. Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), mot. for rev. denied, 125 Fed. Cl.
57 (2016), aff’d mem., 671 F. App’x 792 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Because special masters serve as
both fact-finders and judicial officers, and because they have developed an expertise that lay
jurors have not, they do not need the same procedural protection that excluding testimony at the
outset provides.” Id. at *41.
Here, the specific relief requested by Petitioner, a motion to strike testimony, is an
exceptional remedy for the issues alleged by Petitioner: that Dr. Forsthuber provided previously
undisclosed opinions at the entitlement hearing and testified beyond the scope of his expert
reports and expertise.
While special masters have the discretionary authority to exclude unreliable evidence
from the record, the Vaccine Rules favor broad inclusion and sets a high bar for the exclusion of
evidence from the record. Petitioner has not demonstrated that Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony is “so
unreliable, it patently forfeits every trace of being helpful.” Veryzer, 2010 WL 2507791, at *21.
Instead, Dr. Forsthuber provided opinions on immunological concepts that went beyond scope of
his written reports. Compare Tr. 270-271 (discussing the role of T lymphocytes and their
interaction with cytokines) with Resp. Ex. F at 3-5 (discussing cytokine levels); see also Resp.
Response at 8.
The undersigned notes the importance of advanced notice of opinions and theories in the
context of the Vaccine Program. And, as she noted at the entitlement hearing, it is prejudicial to
Petitioner for Dr. Forsthuber to offer new opinions that were not included in his written expert
5 RCFC 37(c)(1) is identical in relevant part to Rule 37(c)(1) of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
6

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 164 Filed 08/18/25 Page 7 of 7
reports and are not foundational basic immunology. Tr. 271-272. However, any prejudice
produced by Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony can be remedied through less exceptional measures than
exclusion of his testimony. In this case, the alternative relief proposed by Petitioner of
submitting responsive written expert reports and then closing the evidentiary record
appropriately addresses any prejudice to Petitioner.
For these reasons, the undersigned finds it is not necessary to strike Dr. Forsthuber’s
testimony. Pursuant to the Vaccine Rules and statute, which favor broad inclusion and principles
of fundamental fairness to both parties, the undersigned DENIES Petitioner’s motion to strike.
The undersigned will afford alternative relief of allowing Petitioner to file written responses to
Dr. Forsthuber’s testimony and thereafter close the evidentiary record.
The following is ORDERED:
(1) Petitioner may file any final responsive expert reports by Friday, September 19,
2025.
(2) Petitioner shall file a joint status report by Friday, September 19, 2025. The joint
status report should confirm that the evidentiary record is complete and propose a
post-hearing briefing schedule.
Any questions regarding this Order may be directed to my law clerk, Audrey Van
Winkle, at (202) 357-6345 or at Audrey_VanWinkle@cfc.uscourts.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-02053-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-10
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/16/2026) regarding 175 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (aevw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 16, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ANGELA GORNOWICZ, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * No. 17-2053V
*
v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, mctlaw, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Dima Jawad Atiya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On December 28, 2017, Angela Gornowicz (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act,” “the
Program,” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018)2 alleging that a tetanus-diphtheria-
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on May 19, 2016, caused her to suffer multiple
sclerosis (“MS”). Petition at 1, 3 (ECF No. 1); Joint Submission, filed Mar. 25, 2025, at 1 (ECF
No. 137).
1 Because this 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). All citations in this Decision to individual sections of the
Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
1

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 8
On August 28, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs,
requesting compensation for the attorneys who worked on her case. Petitioner’s Renewed
Motion for Payment of Petitioner’s Interim Attorney’s Fees and Reimbursement of Case Costs
(“Pet. Mot.”), filed Aug. 28, 2025 (ECF No. 165). Petitioner’s request can be summarized as
follows:
Attorneys’ Fees – $459,315.20
Attorneys’ Costs – $69,452.15
Petitioner thus requests a total of $528,767.35. Respondent filed his response on
September 11, 2025, stating that he “defers to the [S]pecial [M]aster to determine whether or not
[P]etitioner has met the legal standard for an interim fees and costs award . . . and the statutory
requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs.” Respondent’s Response to Pet. Mot.
(“Resp. Response”), filed Sept. 11, 2025, at 2 (ECF No. 166). Petitioner filed a reply on
September 19, 2025, reiterating the request for fees and costs. Pet. Reply to Resp. Response,
filed Sept. 19, 2025 (ECF No. 169).
This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons discussed below, the
undersigned GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s motion and awards $503,573.98 in attorneys’ fees
and costs.
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 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. If a special master has not yet determined
entitlement, she may still award attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis. Avera v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Such awards “are particularly
appropriate in cases where proceedings are protracted and costly experts must be retained.” Id.
Similarly, it is proper for a special master to award interim fees and costs “[w]here the claimant
establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists a good
faith basis for the claim.” Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 609 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2010).
The claim appears at this point to have been brought in good faith and built on a
reasonable basis. Moreover, the undersigned finds that an award of interim attorneys’ fees and
costs is appropriate here where there are significant fees to be paid.
A. Attorneys’ Fees
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
2

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 8
“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
“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 the 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 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 Act 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. 1991), rev’d on other grounds and 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 claimed in attorney fee requests . . . [v]accine program special
masters are also entitled to use their prior experience in reviewing fee applications.” Saxton, 3
F.3d at 1521.
1. Hourly Rates
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of her counsel: for Mr. Altom
Maglio, $362.00 per hour for work performed in 2017 and $381.00 per hour for work performed
in 2018; for Ms. Anne Toale, $378.00 per hour for work performed in 2017, $402.00 per hour for
work performed in 2018, and $535.00 per hour for work performed in 2023; for Ms. Danielle
Strait, $340.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $415.00 per hour for work performed in
2022, $450.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $520.00 per hour for work performed in
2025; for Ms. Diana Stadelnikas, $359.00 per hour for work performed in 2016, $396.00 per
hour for work performed in 2018, $415.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $440.00 per
hour for work performed in 2020, $470.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $490.00 per
hour for work performed in 2022, $525.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $560.00 per
hour for work performed in 2024, and $605.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; for Ms.
Jessica Olins, $410.00 per hour for work performed in 2025; and for Mr. Joseph Vuckovich,
$415.00 per hour for work performed in 2023, $445.00 per hour for work performed in 2024, and
$490.00 per hour for work performed in 2025. Petitioner also requests rates between $135.00
and $205.00 per hour for work of her counsel’s paralegals from 2016 to 2025.
The undersigned finds that these requested rates are reasonable and in accordance with
what has previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work. See, e.g., Vorwerck v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-749V, 2024 WL 1511985, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 13,
2024); Mekwinski v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1354V, 2024 WL 3677474, at *1
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 23, 2024); Garris v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1354V,
2025 WL 3677474, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 2025); Berchielli v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-658V, 2025 WL 3079989, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 8, 2025); Fedler-
Deas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-2065V, 2025 WL 3280929, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 29, 2025). Thus, the undersigned will award the rates requested.
3

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 8
2. Reduction of Billable Hours
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
amount requested is reasonable. Bell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 751, 760
(1989). Petitioner bears the burden of documenting the fees and costs claimed.
Upon review of the submitted billing records, the undersigned finds the majority of the
time billed to be reasonable. The timesheet entries are sufficiently detailed for an assessment to
be made of the entries’ reasonableness. However, reductions are necessary for the following
reasons.
First, there are numerous duplicative billing entries from multiple members of mctlaw
throughout the seven years of litigation. And as such, the undersigned finds a reduction
necessary for “[u]nreasonably duplicative or excessive billing,” which includes “an attorney
billing for a single task on multiple occasions, multiple attorneys billing for a single task,
attorneys billing excessively for intra office communications, attorneys billing excessive hours,
[and] attorneys entering erroneous billing entries.” Raymo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
129 Fed. Cl. 691, 703 (2016). The undersigned and other special masters have previously noted
the inefficiency that results when cases are staffed by multiple individuals and have reduced fees
accordingly. See, e.g., Sabella, 86 Fed. Cl. at 209 (affirming a special master's reduction of fees
for overstaffing where three attorneys from two different firms worked on the same case); Van
Vessem v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-132V, 2018 WL 3989517, at *7 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. July 3, 2018) (finding that “it is not reasonable for both an attorney and a paralegal
to bill for reviewing each filing in the case”). Such inefficiency is evident in this case.
For example, there are multiple entries from attorneys and/or paralegals reviewing the
same filings. After the petition was filed on December 28, 2017, Ms. Toale billed for reviewing
filings on January 1, 2018 and January 3, 2018, for a total of 0.7 hours.3 The only filings at that
time were the notice of designation of electronic case (filed in every case), order entering Ms.
Heather Pearlman as attorney of record for Respondent (filed in every case), and the notice of
assignment to the special master assigned to the case at that time. Then, on January 5, 2018, Ms.
Toale billed 0.2 hours for reviewing the notice of assignment and 0.3 hours for “Reviewing draft
pleadings,” which at that time was only the petition.
3 Other work was billed during the January 3 entry; however, it is impossible to discern how
much time was spent reviewing filings due to counsel’s block billing entry. “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
amount requested is reasonable.” Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-10V,
2016 WL 720969, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing Bell, 18 Cl. Ct. at 760); see
also Broekelschen, 102 Fed. Cl. at 729.
4

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 5 of 8
On February 9 and 10, 2018, Ms. Toale and a paralegal both billed for reviewing a
scheduling order from the Court. On June 7 and June 8, 2018, Ms. Stadelnikas and a paralegal
both billed for reviewing a scheduling order from the Court. In August 2018, both Ms.
Stadelnikas and a paralegal billed for reviewing an email from Respondent regarding their
request for additional time. On October 9, 2018 and October 11, 2019, Ms. Stadelnikas and a
paralegal both billed for reviewing a status report from Respondent and reviewing a non-PDF
order from the Court. This practice continued over the more than seven years of litigation thus
far.
There are also duplicative entries for two people attending the same internal
conference/meeting. For example, June 29, 2022, a paralegal and Ms. Stadelnikas both billed for
a conference/“case consult.” On May 17, 2023, Ms. Stadelnikas and Ms. Strait billed for a
conference/meeting to discuss the case.
Additionally, there are instances of duplicative billing by the same person for the same
task. For example, on August 16, 2023, Ms. Stadelnikas billed twice for “[r]eview scheduling
order regarding interim fees.”
The second reason the undersigned finds a reduction necessary is due to paralegals billing
for preparing documents for filing and filing documents,4 which are non-compensable,
administrative tasks. 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).
Third, a reduction is necessary due to billing entries from attorneys “[a]dvising
paralegal[s]” to prepare, finalize, and/or file documents, while said paralegals were billing for
such tasks. See, e.g., Vinocur v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-598V, 2020 WL
3619896, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 29, 2020) (“In the undersigned’s experience, the time
4 For example, see entries dated December 28, 2017 (“file petition”); April 18, 2018 (“file”
motion to substitute); June 6, 2019 (“finalize exhibits,” notice of filing, and exhibit list by
paralegal and “revise pleadings, notice[,] and exhibit list” by attorney); October 30, 2019
(“prepare [medical records] for filing”); November 21, 2019 (paralegal billing for finalizing
numerous exhibits and “[r]eview confirmation of same”); September 11, 2020 (“prepare
[medical records] for filing”); November 9, 2021 (“prepare [medical records] for filing”); April
3, 2023 (“preparation of exhibits”); March 25, 2025 (“facilitate filing”).
5

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 6 of 8
it would take an experienced attorney to direct an experienced paralegal to file a certain
document (particularly pro forma documents drafted by the paralegal) is so negligible that it
should not be billed for at all.”); O’Leary v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-584V, 2022
WL 1055352, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 21, 2022) (reducing fees for “attorney time
directing paralegals to file documents”); Buchanan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
1649V, 2022 WL 9931077, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 23, 2022) (same); Foster v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1502V, 2020 WL 3619919, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 23,
2020) (reducing fees “for excessive time billed by counsel to direct paralegal activity”).
For example, on August 15, 2019, Ms. Stadelnikas billed for “[a]dvise paralegal
regarding drafting [notice of filing], execution of same” and “[r]eview draft notices[] [and]
[s]end correspondence to paralegal regarding same.” And on that same day, the paralegal billed
for “draft document,” “[d]raft notice of filing and exhibit list for exhibit 12” and “[r]eview and
finalize Notice of Filing and Exhibit list.” In all, there are five separate billing entries pertaining
to the preparation and filing of one exhibit on August 15, 2019, which is excessive.
Additionally, on other occasions, Ms. Stadelnikas billed for preparing a document for filing (e.g.,
“[d]raft pleading”) and “[a]dvising paralegal regarding filing of pleading.” See, e.g., Pet. Ex. 47
at 15. Ms. Stadelnikas on other occasions also billed for “approving drafts” for filing and
“[a]dvis[ing] paralegal,” which was following by the paralegal billing for “[r]eview and finalize
exhibits” and “[r]eview confirmation of same.” Pet. Ex. 93 at 4.
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, 129 Fed. Cl. at 702. “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).
These are not new issues to Ms. Stadelnikas or mctlaw. See, e.g., Reed ex rel. I.R. v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-650V, 2019 WL 2500417, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 21, 2019) (reducing fees by 5% for the same issues); Blender v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 16-1308V, 2020 WL 5090439, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 5, 2020) (same);
Howells v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-142V, 2023 WL 3750380, at *6 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 1, 2023) (same); Morrison v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-386V,
2024 WL 5297958, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 2, 2024) (same); Vazquez ex rel. A.R. v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1817V, 2025 WL 3143310, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 16, 2025) (reducing fees by 5% and reducing pre-hearing briefing time by 10%).
For the above-mentioned reasons, the undersigned finds a 5% reduction necessary,
reasonable, and appropriate here. See, e.g., Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521(noting that the court must
6

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 7 of 8
exclude “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” (quoting Hensley, 461
U.S. at 434)). This results in a reduction of $22,965.76.5
B. Attorneys’ Costs
Petitioner requests $69,452.15 for miscellaneous costs, including the filing fee, medical
records, legal research, medical literature, and postage, and expert services rendered by Dr. Darin
Okuda and Dr. Andrew Goodman.
The undersigned finds Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting most
of these costs. A small reduction of $21.116 is necessary due to missing supporting costs
documentation. Petitioner may request these costs in her final fees motion.
Additionally, Petitioner provided documentation for payment of the hearing transcript
($1,793.50) but did not include this cost in Petitioner’s cost request. See Pet. Ex. 94 at 61-62.
The undersigned finds this cost should be awarded and the undersigned will include this cost in
Petitioner’s award here, resulting in an addition of $1,793.50.
Dr. Okuda requests $26,750.00 for 53.5 hours of work at a rate of $500.00 per hour. The
undersigned finds this rate reasonable and in accordance what Dr. Okuda has been granted in the
past, and will award it in full. See, e.g., Garris, 2025 WL 3677474, at *4.
Dr. Goodman requests $38,910.00 for 77.82 hours of work at a rate of $500.00 per hour.
Dr. Goodman’s hourly rate has not previously been awarded in the Program. The undersigned
will award the requested rate of $500.00 per hour in this case based on the qualifications of Dr.
Goodman as a well-credentialled member of his field. The undersigned notes that other special
masters have determined this rate appropriate for other well-qualified neurologists. See, e.g.,
Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-729V, 2022 WL 16584904, at *6 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 22, 2022) (awarding $500.00 hourly rate for a neurologist); Lewis v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 149 Fed. Cl. 308, 317 (2020) (finding that special masters typically
award $450.00 to $500.00 for neurologists). As a result, the undersigned finds this rate
reasonable. However, the undersigned deducts $4,000.00 for 8 hours of time billed for a third
day of a hearing that did not occur. See Pet. Ex. 94 at 60.
Thus, Petitioner’s final cost award is $67,224.54.7
II. CONCLUSION
Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that it is reasonable to compensate
Petitioner and her counsel as follows:
5 $459,315.20 x 0.05 = $22,965.76.
6 $6.46 (01/10/2017) + $7.10 (01/10/2019) + $6.95 (03/21/2019) +$0.60 (04/28/2020) = $21.11.
7 $69,452.15 - $21.11 + $1,793.50 - $4,000.00 = $67,224.54.
7

Case 1:17-vv-02053-UNJ Document 181 Filed 04/10/26 Page 8 of 8
Requested Attorneys’ Fees: $459,315.20
Reduction of Attorneys’ Fees: - $22,965.76
Awarded Attorneys’ Fees: $436,349.44
Requested Attorneys’ Costs: $69,452.15
Reduction of Attorneys’ Costs: - $4,021.11
Addition of Attorneys’ Costs: + $1,793.50
Awarded Attorneys’ Costs: $67,224.54
Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: $503,573.98
Accordingly, the undersigned awards:
Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $503,573.98 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.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
8 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