In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 12-477V 

Filed: July 25, 2017 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Sanders 

K.T., a minor, by her mother and natural *

guardian, ALISHA DUDENHOEFFER, * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; 

* Adjusted Hourly Rate. 

Petitioner, * 

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

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

Clifford J. Shoemaker, Shoemaker and Associates, Vienna, VA, for Petitioner. 

Darryl R. Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On July 27, 2012, Alisha Dudenhoeffer (“Petitioner”) petitioned for compensation on 

behalf of her daughter, K.T., under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012).2

 Petitioner alleged that K.T. developed Myoclonic-Astatic 

1 This decision shall be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that 

satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a 

motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, 

such material will be deleted from public access. 

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. 

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2012) 
2

Epilepsy (“MAE”) (also known as “Doose Syndrome”) as a result of the administration of the 

Measles-Mumps-Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine. Petition, filed July 27, 2012. On September 8, 

2016, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman issued a decision denying compensation to Petitioner. 

ECF No. 84. Petitioner filed a Motion for Review on October 10, 2016, which was denied by 

Judge Campbell-Smith on April 28, 2017. ECF Nos. 85, 92.

Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on July 12, 2017. Petitioner requested 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $16,979.10. See Pet’r’s Mot. Att’ys’ Fees (“Mot.”), ECF No. 

95. Respondent indicated that “[t]o the extent the Special Master is treating [P]etitioner’s 

request for attorneys’ fees and costs as a motion that requires a response from [R]espondent . . . 

Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are 

met in this case.” Resp’t’s Resp. at 2 (July 12, 2017), ECF No. 96. Respondent recommended 

that the undersigned exercise her discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ 

fees and costs. Id. at 3. Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter.

For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned awards Petitioner $16,961.10 in 

attorneys’ fees.

I. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). 

The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 

1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial 

estimate . . . by ‘multiplying the numbers of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times 

a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347-48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). 

Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of 

the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348.

It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of 

fees. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521-22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see 

also Hines v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl Ct. 750, 753 (1991) (“[T]he reviewing 

court must grant the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both 

attorneys’ fees and costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous 

and specific billing records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on 

said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). 

Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the 

relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the 

rate “in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, 

experience and reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. The petitioner bears the burden of providing 

adequate evidence to prove that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.

 

(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
3

a. Hourly Rates

Special Master Gowen determined the reasonable forum rate ranges for attorneys with 

varying years of experience. McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 

2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion for recons. denied, 2015 

WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). Pursuant to McCulloch, a forum attorney 

with more than 20 years of experience may be awarded $350 to $425 per hour. Id. An attorney 

with less than four years of experience, on the other hand, has a reasonable hourly rate between 

$150 and $225. Id. 

In the instant case, the requested rates for 2016 are within the ranges provided in the 

2015-16 Office of Special Masters’ Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedule.3 These rates 

have previously been found to be reasonable and have been awarded. See, e.g., Bookey by 

Rosenbloom v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-26V, 2017 WL 2544892 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. May 18, 2017); Mikkelson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-867V, 2016 

WL 6803786 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 3, 2016). The undersigned finds that they are also 

reasonable and should be awarded in this case.

However, Mr. Shoemaker’s rate for 2017 requires some adjustment. Petitioner requests 

that Mr. Shoemaker receive $446 an hour for work performed in 2017. Pet’r’s Mot. at 3. Mr. 

Shoemaker has been practicing law for over 40 years and has significant experience in the 

Vaccine Program. However, the 2017 Office of Special Masters’ Attorneys’ Forum Hourly 

Rate Fee Schedule4provides that attorneys with the most experience (31+ years), may 

reasonably be awarded $394 - $440. I will award Mr. Shoemaker the upper limit of this range, 

but not beyond it. Therefore, I will set his hourly rate for work performed in 2017 at $440.

The total fee reduction for Mr. Shoemaker is $18.00.

b. Hours Expended

Petitioner requests compensation for 10.3 hours entered by Mr. Shoemaker, 28 hours by 

Ms. Gentry, and 2.4 hours by Ms. Knickelbein. See generally Pet’r’s Mot. Petitioner 

 

3 The 2015-2016 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule-2015-

2016.pdf. The hourly rates contained in the 2015-2016 Fee Schedule are updated from the 

decision McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).

4 The 2017 Fee Schedule can be accessed at: 

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Attorneys-Forum-Rate-Fee-Schedule2017.pdf. The hourly rates contained in the 2017 Fee Schedule are updated from the decision 

McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015).
4

submitted adequate billing logs listing the date, amount of time, individual, and the nature of 

each task. Based on the lack of objection from Respondent and my review of Petitioner’s 

motion, I find that the hours expended are reasonable and should be awarded in full.

II. Conclusion

Based on all of the above, the undersigned finds that Petitioner is entitled to the 

following award of reasonable attorneys’ fees:

Attorneys’ Fees Requested $16,979.10

(Reduction to Mr. Shoemaker’s Hourly Rate in 2017) -$18.00

Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $16,961.10

The undersigned has reviewed Petitioner’s counsel’s detailed records of time and 

expenses incurred in this case, and they are reasonable with the above reduction. In accordance 

with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), the undersigned finds that Petitioner is 

entitled to attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of 

$16,961.10,

5

in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, Clifford J. Shoemaker, of Shoemaker and Associates. In the absence of a motion 

for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Herbrina D. Sanders

 Herbrina D. Sanders

Special Master

 

5 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award 

encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for 

legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or 

collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See 

generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

6 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to 

seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).