VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00096
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00096
Petitioner: GEOFFREY DONALDSON
Filed: 2022-01-31
Decided: 2026-01-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-14
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 167840

AI-assisted case summary:
Geoffrey Donaldson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 31, 2022, alleging that the Fluzone High-Dose seasonal influenza vaccine and/or the Prevnar 13 Pneumococcal Conjugate vaccine he received on October 14, 2019, caused him to suffer transverse myelitis. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report arguing the case was not appropriate for compensation, and petitioner submitted medical records and an expert report from neurologist Laura S. Boylan, M.D. The case has been pending since 2022, and respondent has filed a responsive expert report. Petitioner filed a motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs, which was amended on October 27, 2025. The court granted the motion, awarding $167,840.51 in interim attorneys' fees and costs. The decision notes that the petitioner believes the vaccines caused his transverse myelitis and that the respondent did not contest good faith. The award covers attorneys' fees and costs, including expert fees for Dr. Boylan and Dr. Stanley Lu, acquisition of medical records, and other litigation expenses. The case is ongoing regarding entitlement and final damages.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00096-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-12
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/30/2026) regarding 107 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (jjr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 30, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
GEOFFREY DONALDSON, *
*
Petitioner, * Case No.: 22-96V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jessica Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On October 27, 2025, petitioner filed an amended Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs, incorporating petitioner’s initial motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed on
February 16, 2024. Petitioner’s (“Pet’r”) Amended Interim Fees Motion (“Int. Mot.”) (ECF No.
103 & 66). For the reasons discussed below, I hereby GRANT petitioner’s motions and award
$167,840.51 interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
I. Procedural History
On January 31, 2022, Geoffrey Donaldson, (“petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation in the National Injury Compensation Program.2 See Petition (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner alleges that, as a result of the Fluzone High-Dose seasonal influenza vaccine and/or
1 In accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, this opinion will be posted
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc. This means the opinion will be available to
anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)B), however, the parties may object to
the published Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule
18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that
is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical
files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine
Rule 18(b). If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the entire opinion will be posted on the
website and available to the public in its current form. Id.
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-1 to -34 (2012)
(“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.

Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 7
the Prevnar 13 Pneumococcal Conjugate (“Prevnar-13") vaccine he received on October 14,
2019, he suffered transverse myelitis. Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner filed supporting medical records and the case was reassigned to my docket on
September 26, 2022. See Pet’r Ex. 1-17 (ECF No. 7); Pet’r Ex. 18-20 (ECF No. 10); Pet’r Ex. 21
(ECF No. 16); Activation and Reassignment Order (ECF No. 22). Petitioner subsequently filed
additional medical records. See Pet’r Ex. 22 (ECF No. 26); Pet’r Ex. 23-26 (ECF No. 37); Pet’r
Ex. 27 (ECF No. 45); Pet’r Ex. 28 (ECF No. 48); Pet’r Ex. 33-34 (ECF No. 60); Pet’r Ex. 35
(ECF No. 63). On August 3, 2023, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, arguing that this case
was not appropriate for compensation. Resp’t Rept (ECF No. 52). Petitioner filed an expert
report from neurologist, Laura S. Boylan, M.D. Pet’r Ex. 32 (ECF No. 58). Respondent has not
yet filed a responsive expert report.
Petitioner filed the initial Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on February 16,
2024, seeking $101,556.20 in attorneys’ fees and costs, but later filed an additional invoice,
increasing the total requested amount to $110,931.20. Int. Mot.; Pet’r Mot. For Leave (ECF No.
77). Petitioner filed supporting declarations from attorneys Jessica Wallace, Debra Gambella,
Daisy Mazoff, and an in-house physician assistant consultant, Gretchen Elgersma, PA, as well as
an Invoice and Statement of Expenses. Pet’r Ex. 1–5 (ECF No. 66); Pet’r Ex. 40 (ECF No. 78-1).
Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion for interim fees and costs, stating that
respondent “defers to the special master to determine whether or not petitioner has met the legal
standard for an interim fees and costs award…” Resp’t Response to Int. Mot. at 2 (ECF No. 67).
On June 20, 2024, while petitioner’s initial attorneys’ fees motion was pending,
respondent filed a responsive expert report. Resp’t Ex. A (ECF No. 76). The undersigned held a
Rule 5 status conference on October 3, 2024, where I ordered petitioner to file either a
supplemental expert report addressing the two issues I outlined in the Rule 5 Status conference,
mainly diagnosis and then onset. Rule 5 Order (ECF No. 87). Petitioner filed a supplemental
expert report from Dr. Boylan on January 25, 2025. Pet’r Ex. 42 (ECF No. 89). After requesting
a subpoena, the undersigned held another status conference in this matter on May 27, 2025,
where I ordered petitioner to obtain additional medical records. Order (ECF No. 96); Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 97). Petitioner obtained the medical records and filed those records on June 24,
2025 and July 2, 2025. Afterwards, respondent requested an opportunity to file a responsive
supplemental expert report. Resp’t Status Rept. (ECF No. 101).
On October 27, 2025, petitioner filed an amended motion for interim attorneys’ fees and
costs. Amended Mot. For Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 103). The amended
interim fees request includes $114,793.70 in attorneys’ fees and $54,455.31 in attorneys’ costs,
totaling $169,249.01. Pet’r Amd. Int. Fee Mot. At 1-2. Respondent filed a response to
petitioner’s amended motion for interim fees and costs on October 29, 2025, stating that the
respondent defers to the Special Master to determine if an award for interim attorneys’ fees and
costs is warranted and if petitioner has met the legal standard for interim attorneys’ fees and
costs. Resp’t Response (ECF No. 104). Petitioner filed a reply on October 29, 2025, reiterating
his request for interim attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet’r Reply (ECF No. 105).
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 7
II. Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
a. Legal Standard
The Vaccine Act provides that reasonable attorney’s fees and costs “shall be awarded”
for a petition that results in compensation. §15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Even when compensation is not
awarded, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “may” be awarded “if the special master or court
determines that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for which
the claim was brought.” § 15(e)(1). The Federal Circuit has reasoned that in formulating this
standard, Congress intended “to ensure that vaccine injury claimants have readily available a
competent bar to prosecute their claims.” Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 675 F.3d
1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Petitioners act in “good faith” if they filed their claims with an honest belief that a
vaccine injury occurred. Turner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-544V, 2007 WL
4410030, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007). The objective reasonable basis inquiry
turns on the “feasibility of the claim” at hand, rather than the likelihood of its success. Id. at *6.
The evidentiary standard to satisfy a reasonable basis inquiry is “more than a mere scintilla but
less than a preponderance of proof.” Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 971 F.3d
1337, 1345-45 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this case, respondent does not contest that this petition was
filed in good faith. See Resp’t Response to Int. Mot. (ECF No. 67). Further, petitioner believes
that the flu vaccine and/or the pneumococcal vaccine caused his transverse myelitis, thus the
good faith requirement is satisfied. See Int. Mot. at 9.
To receive an award of fees and costs, a petitioner must also demonstrate the claim was
brought with a reasonable basis through objective evidence supporting “the claim for which the
petition was brought.” Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir.
2017); see also Chuisano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 286 (2014)
(citing McKellar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed Cl. 297, 303 (2011)). Petitioner
filed accompanying medical records to support his petition in addition to an expert report
supporting the allegation that the flu and/or Prevnar-13 vaccinations petitioner received on
October 14, 2019 caused him to suffer from transverse myelitis. See Pet’r Ex. 11 at 73-74, 168,
171, 174-75; Pet’r Ex. 12 at 3-5; Pet’r Ex. 32. As such, I find that there is reasonable basis to
award petitioner reasonable interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
b. Interim Awards
The Vaccine Act permits interim attorneys’ fees and costs. Avera v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
609 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Shaw, the Federal Circuit held that it was proper to grant an
interim award when “the claimant establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue
hardship.” 609 F.3d at 1375. In Avera, the Federal Circuit stated that “[i]nterim fees are
particularly appropriate in cases where proceedings are protracted, and costly experts must be
retained.” 515 F.3d at 1352. I do not routinely grant interim fee applications. I generally defer
ruling on an interim fee application if: the case has been pending for less than 1.5 years
3

Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 7
(measured from the date of filing); the amount of fees requested is less than $30,000; and/or the
aggregate amount of expert costs is less than $15,000.00. If any one of these conditions exists, I
generally defer ruling until these thresholds are met or until an entitlement hearing has occurred.
These are, however, only informal requirements, and there are ultimately many factors bearing
on the merit of an interim fee application. I evaluate each one on its own merits.
Under the circumstances of this case, interim fees are warranted. This case has been
pending for over two years, which ordinarily “suffice[s] to constitute the type of ‘circumstances’
to warrant an interim fee award.” Woods v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148,
154 (2012). Respondent has raised no objection to the motion. See Resp’t Resp. (ECF Nos. 104,
67). Moreover, petitioner’s counsel has incurred significant attorneys’ fees and costs litigating
his claim, both of which combined are over the threshold amounts discussed above. Further, this
case has been pending since 2022 and respondent has filed an additional expert report, which
will necessitate additional attorneys fees prior to this case being resolved.
III. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
a. Legal Standard
As stated above, the Vaccine Act only authorizes “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Federal Circuit has approved use of the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349. Using the lodestar approach, a
court first determines “an initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys’ 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. Although not explicitly stated in the statute, the requirement that
only reasonable amounts be awarded applies to costs as well as to fees. See Perreira v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Special masters have “wide discretion in determining the reasonableness of both
attorneys’ fees and costs.” Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991).
They may look to their experience and judgment to reduce the number of hours billed to a level
they find reasonable for the work performed. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d
1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A line-by-line evaluation of the billing records is not required.
Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 483 (1991), aff’d in relevant part,
988 F.2d 131 (Fed. Cir. 1993 (per curiam).
The petitioner “bea[rs] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged,
and the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484. Adequate proof of the
claimed fees and costs should be presented when the motion is filed. Id. at 484, n. 1. Counsel
“should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive,
redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to
exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983).
b. Hourly Rate
4

Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 7
The interim fee decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of
appropriate ranges for attorneys' fees based upon an individual’s experience. McCulloch v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (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. The Office of Special Masters Attorneys’ Forum
Hourly Rate Fee Schedules for 2021-2024 can be accessed online.3
Petitioner requests a total of $114,793.70 in attorneys’ fees for work done by his
attorneys Ms. Jessica Wallace, Ms. Debra Gambella, and Ms. Daisy Mazoff, as well as for
paralegal support provided by Ms. Ashley Plescia, Ms. Nicky Tenney, Ms. Esther Novak, Ms.
Michelle Pelliccio, Ms. Sarah McCullar, Ms. Jennifer Swanson, and Ms. Tabitha Stone. Int. Mot.
at 12-13; Pet’r Am. Int. Mot. at 18-22. Petitioner’s request also includes work done by Ms.
Gretchen Elgersma, PA, an in-house medical consultant. Id. at 13. Petitioner requests the
following rates for the work of his counsel:
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Ms. Jessica Wallace $231 $241 $275 $285 $320 $359
Ms. Debra Gambella $380 $394 $409 $424 $439
Ms. Daisy Mazoff $380 $403
For the PA consulting work performed by Ms. Elgersma, petitioner requests the
following rates: $212 per hour for work performed in 2021; $220 per hour for work performed in
2022; and $228 per hour for work performed in 2023. Int. Fee at 22. Petitioner also requests the
following rates for paralegal work: $156 per hour for work performed in 2020; $162 per hour for
work performed in 2021; $174 per hour for work performed in 2022; $180 per hour for work
performed in 2023; $187 per hour for work performed in 2024; and $195 for work performed in
2025. Amd. Int. Fee at 22.
The hourly rates requested for Ms. Wallace, Ms. Gambella, and Ms. Mazoff are
consistent with the prior hourly fee awards. See, e.g. Carroll v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1125V, 2023 WL 2771034, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 4, 2023).
However, the rates requested for PA consulting work performed by Ms. Elgersma are
excessive and should be reduced to the paralegal rate. See Patko v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 22-1059V, 2024 WL 1253808, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23, 2024) (finding
that “the hourly rate requested for PA Elgersma is considered excessive for a non-barred
individual, who is also otherwise not acting in this matter as a retained expert” and lowering the
requested rate to…be consistent with what a paralegal would receive in the Vaccine Program.”).
Reducing her rates to the paralegal rates results in a $1,407.80 reduction in fees.
c. Hours Expended
3 The 2021-2024 Fee Schedules can be accessed at https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/2914. The hourly rates
contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
No. 09-923V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
5

Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 7
Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that
are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).
The overall number of hours spent on this matter appear to be reasonable and the billing
statement provided by counsel provides sufficient detail documenting the number of hours
expended on different tasks. Additionally, respondent did not identify any objectionable items in
the billing sheet. Accordingly, no adjustments are necessary.
d. Attorneys’ Cost
Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable. Perreira v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992). Petitioner requests a total of
$54,455.31 in costs. Amd. Int. Fee at 16. Petitioner’s costs include expert fees, acquisition of
medical records, shipping, postage, copying, and subpoena service. See Amd. Int. Fee. at 59-61.
A majority of the costs are associated with the experts retained in this matter, totaling
$24,450.00. Id. The remainder includes additional costs associated with obtaining the extensive
medical records of petitioner, postage for mailing files, and the court filing fee.
Petitioner’s neurology expert, Laura Boylan, M.D., has authored two expert reports in
this case. Pet’r Ex. 32 & 42. Dr. Boylan charged a total of $23,250.00, representing 46.5 hours
of work, including reviewing petitioner’s medical records and drafting two reports. These rates
are consistent with prior awards for work performed by Dr. Boylan in corresponding years, and,
thus, are reasonable. See, e.g., Schultz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-539V, 2018
U.S. Claims LEXIS 235 at 5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 16, 2018). Petitioner’s neuroradiology
expert, Dr. Stanley Lu, M.D., reviewed MRI results and authored a report, for which he charged
$1,200.00. Pet’r Ex. 36 (ECF No. 68).
These costs are well documented and are typically incurred in the Vaccine Program.
Therefore, petitioner is entitled to recover the full amount of his requested costs in the amount of
$54,455.31.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the above, petitioner’s motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs is
hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, I award the following:
1) A lump sum of $167,840.51, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s attorneys’
fees and costs, 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 herewith.4
4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine
Rule 11(a).
6

Case 1:22-vv-00096-UNJ Document 111 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
7