In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-867V 

(to be published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 * Special Master Corcoran 

DAVID MIKKELSON, *

 * Filed: October 3, 2016 

 Petitioner, * 

 * Attorney’s Fees and Costs;

 v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; 

 * Guillain–Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Clifford John Shoemaker, Shoemaker, Gentry, and Knickelbein, Vienna, VA, for Petitioner. 

 

Julia McInerny, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On August 12, 2015, David Mikkelson filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”),

2

 based upon allegations that 

he developed Guillain–Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his October 3, 2013, receipt of the 

influenza (“flu”) vaccine. The parties stipulated to damages, and I issued a decision awarding them 

on July 25, 2016 (ECF No. 26).

Petitioner filed a Motion requesting an award of attorney’s fees on July 23, 2016. He requests 

the fees incurred by Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein (“Shoemaker Firm”) in the amount of 

$27,295.90, and costs in the amount of $1,041.12, for a total amount of $28,337.02, plus personally 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 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 fourteen 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). Otherwise, the whole decision will be 

available to the public. Id. 

2

 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 

1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2012)). 
2

incurred costs of $401.20. See Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“Fees Mot.”) filed on July 23, 2016 (ECF 

No. 25). Respondent does not oppose the request in substance, but does suggest that the total amount 

sought is too high, stating that a reasonable amount for fees and costs in the present case would fall 

between $18,000.00 and $22,000.00. See Respondent’s Response to Motion for Attorney’s Fees 

(“Response”) at 4-5 (ECF No. 30). For the reasons stated below, and after review of the parties’ 

submissions and relevant decisions of other special masters, I hereby award the total sum of 

$27,917.52 in attorney’s fees and costs to the Shoemaker Firm. I also award David Mikkelson $401.20

in costs. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

As noted above, Mr. Mikkelson alleged that he developed GBS after receiving the flu vaccine 

in October 2013. The primary attorneys to have worked on the case were Clifford Shoemaker and 

Renee Gentry of the Shoemaker Firm3. The billing invoices filed in connection with the present fee 

request reveal that Sabrina Knickelbein also performed work throughout the case, which consisted 

primarily of email correspondence and reviewing records, but amounting to only 10.2 hours of the 

total billed hours. Fees Mot. at 13-17. 

The Shoemaker Firm began work on the case in April 2015 – four months prior to filing their 

two-page petition. During that time, Mr. Shoemaker billed 22.4 hours, which seems to have been 

primarily consumed by correspondence with Petitioner and reviewing medical records. Once the 

petition was filed, the case moved relatively quickly, in part due to the time invested prior to filing 

the Petition. Three months after filing, on November 10, 2015, the parties stated in a joint status report 

that the record was complete. See Joint Status Report filed on November 10, 2015 (ECF No. 10). It

is difficult to tell what work Mr. Shoemaker performed during this time, because the billing entries 

are vague and often only include the notation “review pleading” with no other details. See Fees Mot. 

at 9-10. It appears however, that in between the initial filing of the Petition and the joint status report, 

the bulk of the work was completed by Ms. Knickelbein, who prepared all the medical records for 

CM/ECF and was in charge of email correspondence with Respondent regarding those records. Id. at 

13-17.

After filing the November 2015 Joint Status Report, the parties went directly into settlement 

negotiations, which continued until July 19, 2016, when Petitioner signed a Stipulation. See generally 

Stipulation (ECF No. 21). Again, the work of the three attorneys shifted during this period, as the 

billing records suggest. Ms. Gentry became the point of contact regarding settlement negotiations, so 

many of the billing entries reflect her work to draft the settlement demand, and communicate to and 

from Respondent and Petitioner. See Fees Mot. at 10-13. Although she became the attorney of record 

one day before the stipulation was filed, Ms. Gentry billed for 19.45 hours during settlement 

 

3

 Renee Gentry became the official counsel of record on July 19, 2016. 
3

negotiations, compared to Mr. Shoemaker’s 5.8 hours. Id. Shortly after the stipulation was entered 

with the court, the present motion was filed. Id. 

Petitioner’s Fees Motion seeks different rates for each of the Shoemaker Firm attorneys. Mr. 

Shoemaker billed his time at a rate of $415 per hour for 2015, and $430 per hour for 2016. Id. at 6, 9. 

Ms. Gentry billed her time at $400 and $415 per hour, respectively for that same period. Id. at 10-11 

Finally, Ms. Knickelbein billed her time at $350 and $363 per hour for the given years. Id. at 13, 16. 

Petitioner also requests reimbursement of costs, both expended by him and by the Shoemaker 

Firm. The costs in this case remained relatively low, as no experts were hired and the parties reached 

a settlement in the early stages of the case. Nonetheless, Petitioner itemized the costs expended on 

this case by the Shoemaker Firm, which included the cost of obtaining medical records from several 

different sources and making copies, totaling $1,041.12. Id. at 19. Mr. Mikkelson also requests 

reimbursement of $401.20 for the filing fee and postage he spent. Id. at 3. 

On August 11, 2016, Respondent filed a document reacting to Petitioner’s Motion. See 

generally Response. Respondent asserts that “[n]either the Vaccine Act nor Vaccine Rule 13 

contemplates any role for Respondent in the resolution of a request by a Petitioner for an award of 

attorney’s fees and costs.” Id. at 1. Respondent added that she “is satisfied the statutory requirements 

for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” Id. at 2. However, she maintained that 

a reasonable amount for fees and costs in the present case would fall between $18,000.00 and 

$22,000.00, providing 11 cases that support the proposed range, all of which were stipulated to by 

the parties. Id. at 3-4. Although those cases involved similarly situated petitioners, none of the 

stipulated fees involved the Shoemaker firm. Id. Of those 11 cases, one even had fees outside the 

Respondent’s proposed range. Id. at 4 (stipulated award of $23,328.91). Petitioner did not file a reply. 

ANALYSIS 

I. Petitioner’s Attorney’s Fees Request

A. Applicable Rates 

I have previously discussed in detail the applicable standards to resolving a fees request in a 

successful Program case. Al-Uffi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-956V, 2015 WL 

6181669, at*5-6 (Fed.Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2015). The primary issue presented by this case is the 

appropriate rates to be paid. 

There have been varying conclusions regarding whether the Shoemaker Firm should receive 

the forum rate, given that the office of the firm is located in Vienna, Virginia and thus not literally 

“in” the D.C. forum. Several years ago, Special Master Moran determined that “work performed in a 
4

suburb of Washington, D.C. is not the same, for an analysis of the forum rate ..., as work performed 

within the District of Columbia.” See Sabella, 86 Fed. Cl. at 201, 208-9. Combining that conclusion 

with the second part the Davis analysis, and comparing the difference between the local rates and the 

forum rates, the special master awarded a local rate. Id. Other recent decisions, however, view the 

Shoemaker Firm’s Office location as synonymous with Washington, D.C., thus making it unnecessary 

to apply the Davis analysis. Green v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-920V, 2016 WL 

2756175, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 14, 2016). L.A. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-

629V, 2016 WL 1104860, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 29, 2016); Miller v. Sec'y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 13-914, 2016 WL 2586700, at *7.

I recently decided this issue as well, finding that although the Shoemaker Firm is not 

physically located in the D.C. forum, they should be awarded forum rates because the local rate in 

Vienna, Virginia is not significantly different from the forum rates. See Jaffri v. Sec’y of Health and 

Human Servs., No. 13-484V, slip op. (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 30, 2016). 

a. Mr. Shoemaker 

Petitioner requests $415 per hour for Mr. Shoemaker for work performed in 2015, and $430 

per hour for work performed in 2016, consistent with the determination of firm rates in McCulloch

and my own decisions. McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19; Jaffri, No. 13-484V at *9. Mr. 

Shoemaker will receive $415 per hour for work performed in 2015, and $430 per hour for his work 

in 2016. 

b. Ms. Gentry 

Petitioner requests $400 per hour for Ms. Gentry for work performed in 2015, and $415 per 

hour for work performed in 2016. Ms. Gentry has received similar rates for her work in the Vaccine 

Program. See Jaffri, No. 13-484V, at *9. Ms. Gentry thus will be awarded $400 per hour for work 

performed in 2015, and $415 per hour for work performed in 2016. 

c. Ms. Knickelbein 

Petitioner requests $350 for Ms. Knickelbein for work performed in 2015, and $363 for work 

performed in 2016. Ms. Knickelbein has also been awarded these rates previously. See Jaffri, No. 

13-484, at *9 (determining $365 per hour for Ms. Knickelbein’s work in 2016 was appropriate). Her 

requested rates fit the range suggested in McCulloch, therefore, I will award $350 per hour for work 

in 2015, and $363 per hour for work performed in 2016. 
5

B. Hours Devoted to Matter

As noted above, special masters are not obligated to scrutinize each entry on a billing record 

in search of inefficiency. Nor has Respondent identified any objectionable billing instance or category 

for me. Respondent does state a range of fees, however, which she views as more appropriate for this 

case. The 11 cases cited to support that range however, are all instances where the parties have 

stipulated to the amount of attorney’s fees, and thus provide me without much basis to evaluate if 

work in this case was excessive. See Response at 4-5. 

I do not find that the matter was overworked. This case was resolved within one year and 

required neither party to hire experts. Such circumstances therefore justify an award of the majority 

of the time billed, with the following exceptions: 

a. On June 17, 2015, Mr. Shoemaker billed .4 hours to “review corr about Phil’s 

disability and discuss with Gretchen; email to client.” See Fees Motion at 7. After looking 

over the exhibits, however, I found no mention of “Phil”; Petitioner’s name is David Allen 

Mikkelson. This lack of oversight exemplifies a larger problem with the descriptions for time 

billed by Mr. Shoemaker - they are often vague - making it difficult to determine the work 

that was performed. I will strike this amount entirely.

b. For several time entries throughout 2015 and 2016, Mr. Shoemaker billed for 

“review pleading,” for a total of .9 hours. Id. (See billed hours on 08/14/15, 08/15/15, 

08/25/15, 09/26/15, 11/11/15, 01/28/16, 02/09/2016, 03/30/2016, 04/05/2016). While it is 

difficult to tell from the description of the activity, it appears that these hours were billed to 

review minor filings on CM/ECF that amounted to one or two sentences. I will reduce the 

billed hours to .3, taking three charges from 2015 and three from 2016, leaving 2 from 2015 

and 1 from 2016. This amount represents the cumulative time I think it would take to review 

the entries in CM/ECF.
6

E. Fees Award Summary 

Based upon all of the above, I award the following attorney’s fees:

III. Litigation Costs 

Petitioner requests two categories of costs. First, he asks for an award of $401.20 to reimburse 

himself for the cost of the filing fee and postage. I will award this as requested.

Petitioner’s next and final category of expenses is for $1,041.12, incurred solely by the 

Shoemaker Firm as costs to obtain medical records and copying. Id. at 18. Respondent does not object 

to these costs as unreasonable, and upon review of the record I find that they are acceptable. See

Response at 4-5. I therefore award this sum in its entirety. 

CONCLUSION 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(e). Based on the reasonableness of Petitioner’s request, as well as my reductions and hourly fee 

rate decisions set forth above, I hereby GRANT in part Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and 

costs, as follows: 

Contested Sum Amount Requested Reduction Total Awarded

Shoemaker Firm 

Attorney’s Fees 

$27,295.90 $419.50 $26,876.40

Shoemaker Firm Costs $1,041.12 none $1,041.12

David Mikkelson’s Fees $401.20 none $401.20

Attorney Year that Work 

was Performed

Hours Awarded Hourly Rate 

Awarded

Total Amount

Mr. Shoemaker 2015 24.7 $415 $10,250.50

2016 7.9 $430 $3,397.00

Ms. Gentry 2015 5.55 $400 $2,220.00

2016 17.9 $415 $7,428.50

Ms. Knickelbein 2015 9.4 $350 $3,290.00

2016 .8 $363 $290.40

Grand Total= $26,876.40
7

Accordingly, I award a total of $27,917.52 as a lump sum in the form of a check jointly 

payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Cliff Shoemaker, Esq. I award separate costs payable 

to David Mikkelson in the amount of $401.20. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant 

to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master 

 

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the Parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.