In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

CHRISTINE MIDNIGHT, *

*

* No. 17-905V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

* Filed: June 29, 2022

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Attorneys’ fees and costs, 

* reasonable basis

Respondent. *

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

Mark T. Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for 

petitioner; 

Claudia B. Gangi, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

PUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Christine Midnight sought compensation through the Vaccine Program, 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2012), but her case was dismissed. 2021 WL 

6426427 (Fed Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 23, 2021). Ms. Midnight has sought an award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs that the Secretary opposes because Ms. Midnight has 

not established that reasonable basis supported the claim set forth in the petition. 

However, a review of the evidence shows that Ms. Midnight has satisfied the 

relatively low threshold for reasonable basis. As such, she is eligible for an award 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the 

Court post this decision on its website. This posting will make the decision 

available to anyone with the internet. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties 

have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by 

the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

of attorneys’ fees and costs. A reasonable amount of these fees and costs totals 

$46,225.30. 

I. Background

A. Medical Chronology

Before receiving the vaccines at issue, Ms. Midnight suffered from various 

problems, including mental health problems. See, e.g., exhibit 3 at 20-30, exhibit 4 

at 40-47. Some of those problems also occurred after the vaccinations, but Ms. 

Midnight alleges she experienced new problems after the vaccinations. Thus, for 

sake of simplicity, the problems that are arguably the same before and after 

vaccination are not discussed in this decision. 

Ms. Midnight received the first set of relevant vaccines on July 9, 2014. 

This set included the mumps-measles-rubella (“MMR”) vaccine, tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine, and the varicella vaccine. Exhibit 

5 at 1. 

About one month later, Ms. Midnight saw a psychiatrist with whom she had 

a standing relationship, Robert Franklin. Dr. Franklin noted that Ms. Midnight was 

complaining about increased anxiety due to a new job as a nurse contractor. 

Exhibit 3 at 19 (Aug. 7, 2014). 

On that same day, August 7, 2014, Ms. Midnight also had an appointment 

with her primary care physician, Brian White. Dr. White diagnosed Ms. Midnight 

as suffering from chronic pain, likely fibromyalgia. Exhibit 4 at 29-30. 

Ms. Midnight received the second set of relevant vaccines on August 15, 

2014. This set included repeat doses of the MMR and varicella vaccines. Exhibit 

5 at 1. Although Ms. Midnight’s claim is not entirely clear, it appears that she 

focuses her arguments on the August 15, 2014 vaccinations. 

Ms. Midnight sought medical care from Concerta Urgent Care on August 26, 

2014. She complained about a fever for one month and a “very strong headache.” 

Exhibit 11 at 8. Ms. Midnight also reported that she “always has [a] reaction to 

vaccines.” Id. Her physical exam was normal. Id. at 2-3. She was referred to an 

emergency room for further work up. Id. at 4, 7. According to Ms. Midnight’s 
3

attorney, the referral indicates that the staff at the urgent care center could not 

handle her complaints. Tr. from Oral Arg. on May 17, 2022 (“Tr.”) 4. 

Ms. Midnight went to the Sandoval Regional Medical Center, which is 

associated with the University of New Mexico. As at urgent care, Ms. Midnight 

reported low-grade fevers since her immunizations at the beginning of the month 

and a high fever of 102 degrees the previous night. Exhibit 24 at 32. She also had 

a headache, which she seems to have rated as a 3 out of 10. Id. at 25, 32. Both 

legs were tender on palpation, id. at 31, and Ms. Midnight described her leg 

problems as new. Exhibit 24 at 20. During this visit, Ms. Midnight said that “her 

heart is ‘flip flopping’ in her chest.” Id. at 10. Her blood pressure was high. Id. at 

31-32. After an examination, Ms. Midnight was discharged with a diagnosis of 

hypertension and advised to consult her doctor. Id. at 29. 

Ms. Midnight returned to her doctor, Dr. White, on September 5, 2014. She 

told Dr. White that “shortly after receiving recent immunizations,” she had a new 

headache and fever. Exhibit 4 at 24-26. Ms. Midnight also said that she had not 

had a fever for the “last few days” and her headache “improved significantly about 

3 or 4 days ago.” Id. at 26. In Dr. White’s assessment and plan, he stated that Ms. 

Midnight’s “symptoms . . . seem fairly characteristic for many viral illnesses, 

including mild encephalitis.” Id. at 27. He added that Ms. Midnight’s acute illness 

“seems fairly unlikely to be a vaccine reaction.” Id. 

Dr. White’s September 5, 2014 report, as discussed below, is a primary 

aspect of the disagreement between the parties regarding reasonable basis. Ms. 

Midnight points to Dr. White’s diagnosis of “encephalitis.” Contrastingly, the 

Secretary emphasizes Dr. White’s determination that a vaccine reaction was “fairly 

unlikely.” 

Ms. Midnight’s medical chronology continues on September 16, 2014, when 

she saw her psychiatrist, Dr. Franklin, for an “emergency meeting.” Exhibit 3 at 

18. Ms. Midnight informed Dr. Franklin that she had been diagnosed with 

“Guillain Barré + encephalitis.” Id. The reference to “Guillain Barré” appears to 

be a mistake as no medical record substantiates that diagnosis. Ms. Midnight more 

accurately also informed Dr. Franklin that she experienced “bad [headaches] + 

fever” for two months. Id. Her current symptoms included “irritable,” “forgetful –

getting a little better,” and “confusion.” Id. Dr. Franklin recommended that Ms. 

Midnight restart valium and continue other medications. Id.
4

Approximately six weeks later, Ms. Midnight had another appointment with 

Dr. White. The history of present illness states that she experienced “tingling in 

fingers, headaches, [and] weakness” and she was “diagnosed with possible 

encephalitis.” Exhibit 3 at 23. On examination, Dr. White detected a slightly 

diminished ability to detect sensations distally. Id. Dr. White recommended an 

evaluation by a neurologist to see if any causes for her problems could be 

determined. Id. at 24. 

The visit with the neurologist, Douglas Barrett, took place on January 2, 

2015. Exhibit 6. Dr. Barrett obtained a detailed account of Ms. Midnight’s 

headaches. According to this history, Ms. Midnight “was in her usual state of 

health until early July when she received some vaccinations.” Exhibit 6 at 6. The 

neurologic examination was normal. Id. at 7. Because of the normal neurologic 

exam, Dr. Barrett did not order any neurodiagnostic imaging or any testing on her 

cerebrospinal fluid. Id. at 8. Dr. Barrett’s impression was that Ms. Midnight had 

“a reaction to her vaccinations that produced, based on her history alone, a sterile 

meningitis with a component of encephalitis.” Id. at 7. 

The parties place different emphasis on this report from Dr. Barrett. Ms. 

Midnight argues that he said that she had a reaction to her vaccinations. But, the 

Secretary maintains that this conclusion merits little weight because it is based 

upon a history from Ms. Midnight alone. 

Dr. Barrett sent his evaluation to Dr. White, who reviewed it in conjunction 

with an appointment on February 18, 2015. Ms. Midnight told Dr. White that she 

was having headaches and some difficulty retrieving words. Exhibit 4 at 20. In 

the assessment / plan, Dr. White, after mentioning Dr. Barrett’s note, stated that 

Ms. Midnight likely has sterile meningoencephalitis, “probably vaccine related, 

suspect measles.” Id. 

Following this February 18, 2015 visit with Dr. White, the parties have not 

emphasized any medical records until a March 15, 2017 appointment with Dr. 

Barrett. In that visit, Ms. Midnight told Dr. Barrett that she has had persistent 

headaches and the nature of her headaches has changed. Exhibit 6 at 3. In 

addition to assessing Ms. Midnight with headaches, Dr. Barrett stated she had a 

“mild cognitive impairment.” Id. at 4. He indicated: “She is continuing to 

experience cognitive complaints unchanged from her prior exam as well as 

worsening problems of depression. This is not the usual natural history of a 

presumed post [vaccinal] meningoencephalitis and the possibility of alternative 

problems, e.g. nonconvulsive seizures will be considered.” Id.
5

B. Procedural History

Dr. Barrett’s March 15, 2017 evaluation occurred about three months before 

the litigation began. Represented by attorney Mark Sadaka, Ms. Midnight alleged 

that the MMR, Tdap, and varicella vaccines she received on July 9, 2014, and the

second set of MMR and varicella vaccines she received on August 15, 2014,

caused her to develop encephalitis, speech-regression, blurred vision, and reduced 

cognitive ability. See Pet., filed July 5, 2017, at Preamble; ¶¶ 2, 13. Ms. Midnight

alleged that after her second set of vaccinations, she developed headaches, fevers, 

and pain in her arms and legs. Id. ¶ 3. Ms. Midnight filed initial medical records 

in July 2017, August 2017, and September 2017. She filed a statement of 

completion on September 27, 2017, and a damages affidavit on October 16, 2017. 

Subsequently, she filed more medical records in April 2018, May 2018, June 2018,

and April 2020.

The Secretary recommended against compensation, questioning Ms. 

Midnight’s encephalitis diagnosis and asserting that Ms. Midnight’s headaches, 

speech regression, and reduced cognitive ability predated vaccination. Resp’t’s 

Rep., filed July 26, 2018, at 11-12. Ms. Midnight was ordered to file expert reports 

from a neurologist and neuroradiologist clearly identifying the injury Ms. Midnight 

allegedly suffered as a result of vaccination and her medical theory of causation. 

See order, filed Aug. 6, 2018.

Ms. Midnight was given multiple opportunities to obtain the report from an 

expert. Because these details are not relevant to the evaluation of the motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, they are not set forth here. However, they are found in 

the Decision Denying Entitlement, issued November 23, 2021. Ms. Midnight’s 

case was eventually dismissed because she appeared not interested in maintaining 

her case. 

While Ms. Midnight’s claim for compensation was pending, she submitted a 

motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis. Pet’r’s Initial 

Mot., filed June 22, 2020. Ms. Midnight subsequently renewed her motion to seek 

final fees. Pet’r’s Renewed Mot., filed Nov. 30, 2021. The Secretary opposed Ms. 

Midnight’s eligibility for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Resp’t’s Resp., filed Dec. 

13, 2021. An oral argument was held on May 17, 2022. This argument helped 

clarify the parties’ positions regarding reasonable basis. 
6

II. Eligibility for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

A. Standards for Adjudication

Petitioners who have not been awarded compensation (like Ms. Midnight 

here) are eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs when “the petition was 

brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). As the Federal Circuit has stated, “good faith” and 

“reasonable basis” are two separate elements that must be met for a petitioner to be 

eligible for attorneys’ fees and costs. Simmons v. Secʼy of Health & Hum. Servs., 

875 F.3d 632, 635 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the Secretary has not raised a challenge 

to Ms. Midnight’s good faith. Thus, the disputed issue is reasonable basis. 

In Cottingham v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, the Federal Circuit 

stated that the evidentiary burden for meeting the reasonable basis standard “is 

lower than the preponderant evidence standard.” 971 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 

2020). Something “more than a mere scintilla” might establish the reasonable 

basis standard. Id. at 1346. Petitioners meet their evidentiary burden with 

“objective evidence.” Id. at 1344. In categorizing medical records as objective 

evidence, the Federal Circuit stated, “[m]edical records can support causation even 

where the records provide only circumstantial evidence of causation.” Id. at 1346. 

Finally, the Federal Circuit in Cottingham specified that “we make no 

determination on the weight of the objective evidence in the record or whether that 

evidence establishes reasonable basis, for these are factual findings for the Special 

Master and not this court.” Id. at 1347.

In its most recent opinion regarding the reasonable basis standard, the 

Federal Circuit stated that medical records, affidavits, and sworn testimony all 

constitute objective evidence to support reasonable basis. James-Cornelius v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 984 F.3d 1374, 1379-81. The Federal Circuit 

further clarified that “absence of an express medical opinion on causation is not 

necessarily dispositive of whether a claim has reasonable basis, especially when 

the case is in its early stages and counsel may not have had the opportunity to 

retain qualified experts.” Id. at 1379 (citing Cottingham, 971 F.3d at 1346). These 

two most recent decisions guide the analysis regarding what types of evidence 

constitute objective evidence of reasonable basis, as originally articulated in 

Simmons, though the ultimate weighing of such evidence is left up to the special 

master.
7

B. Evaluation of the Evidence

In simple terms, the parties differ in how they value the records Ms. 

Midnight’s treating doctors created. Ms. Midnight tends to accept various 

statements on their face. For example, Ms. Midnight cites Dr. Barrett’s diagnosis 

of “meningoencephalitis” as a “reaction to her vaccination[s].” Pet’r’s Reply, filed 

Dec. 20, 2021, at pdf 4-5 (citing exhibit 6 at 7). The Secretary, in contrast, 

examines these statements at a deeper level. For example, the Secretary maintains 

Dr. Barrett’s diagnosis should carry minimal weight because Dr. Barrett made his 

conclusion “based on [Ms. Midnight’s] history alone.” Resp’t’s Resp., filed Dec. 

13, 2021, at 7 (quoting exhibit 6 at 7). 

One judge of the Court of Federal Claims provided some guidance about the 

level of scrutiny to give to statements of treating doctors when determining 

whether reasonable basis supports the claims set forth in the petition in Wirtshafter 

v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 155 Fed. Cl. 665 (2021). In that case, 

the (undersigned) special master had reviewed statements from treating physicians 

and had declined to credit them because, in part, the treating doctors received 

inaccurate information. Wirtshafter, No. 18-1562V, 2021 WL 1906258, at *7 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 16, 2021). However, after a motion for review was 

filed, the Court held, as a matter of law, that the special master’s evaluation 

constituted an abuse of discretion. 155 Fed. Cl. at 672. In the Court’s view, the 

finding of “inaccurate information” was not accurate despite the presence of 

“conflicting information.” Id. at 673. Thus, based upon the statements of treating 

doctors who suspected that Ms. Wirtshafter’s neurologic problem was triggered by 

a vaccination, the Court found that the evidence in that case satisfied the 

reasonable basis standard. Id. at 675. 

Wirtshafter was raised with the parties during the May 17, 2022 oral 

argument. See order, issued May 12, 2022. The Secretary’s response was, 

essentially, three-fold. First, the Secretary stated that as an opinion from the Court 

of Federal Claims that is not a remand, Wirtshafter does not establish precedent 

that binds the outcome in this case. Tr. 22. On this point, the Secretary is 

technically correct. See Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 941 F.3d 

1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 

625, 630 (1998), aff’d in non-relevant part, 191 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

However, the Secretary fails to appreciate that Wirtshafter constitutes a persuasive 

precedent from a tribunal that oversees decisions of special masters. It, therefore, 

remains relevant based upon its power to persuade. 
8

Wirtshafter’s (lack of) persuasiveness is the Secretary’s second point. The 

Secretary maintained that the Court’s opinion constituted bad law because it was 

not consistent with the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & 

Hum. Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Tr. 28. However, the Secretary could 

have challenged the outcome of Wirtshafter by appealing to the Federal Circuit. 

The Secretary’s failure to file an appeal, although not dispositive, certainly induces 

some hesitancy for the undersigned to question the outcome of Wirtshafter. 

As a third and final point, the Secretary attempted to distinguish Wirtshafter

by arguing that the evidence from treating doctors in Wirtshafter was, in some 

ways, stronger than the evidence from Ms. Midnight’s treating doctors. Tr. 24-25. 

However, a lesson from Wirtshafter is that statements from treating doctors, at 

least those statements that are rendered in the course of treatment, should not be 

examined very critically in determining whether a reasonable basis supports the 

claim set forth in the petition. 

Here, Ms. Midnight’s July 5, 2017 petition alleged the MMR and varicella 

vaccines she received on August 15, 2014 caused her to develop encephalitis. See

Pet. at Preamble; ¶¶ 2, 13. Dr. Barrett’s January 2, 2015 report and Dr. White’s 

February 8, 2015 report indicate that Ms. Midnight had meningoencephalitis due to 

the vaccinations. Exhibit 6 at 7; exhibit 4 at 20. These reports, taken together, 

constitute more than a scintilla of evidence supporting a claim set forth in the 

petition. 

A judge of the Court of Federal Claims has recognized that even when a 

petitioner produces more than a scintilla of evidence, a special master may find 

that the petitioner, nevertheless, failed to meet the threshold for establishing 

reasonable basis. Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 159 Fed. Cl. 328

(2022), appeal docketed, No. 22-1737 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2022). Such is not the 

case here. “[D]espite the enigma that surrounds the amount and quality of 

evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis for a vaccine compensation

claim,” Wirtshafter, 155 Fed. Cl. at 672, Ms. Midnight’s evidence crosses the line. 

She has met her burden to establish that her claim was supported by reasonable 

basis and, therefore, she is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Technically, being eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs does not 

necessarily entitle a petitioner to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Because 

the Vaccine Act states that a special master “may” (not “shall”) award attorneys’ 

fees and costs to eligible petitioners, special masters retain some discretion not to 
9

award attorneys’ fees and costs. See Wirtshafter, 155 Fed. Cl. at 675-76. But, the 

Secretary has not identified any ground to deny attorneys’ fees and costs. See Tr. 

30-31. Accordingly, the undersigned finds an award of attorneys’ fees and costs 

appropriate. 

III. Reasonable Amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach 

to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. This is a 

two-step process. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by ‘multiplying 

the number 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. Here, because 

the lodestar process yields a reasonable result, no additional adjustments are 

required. Instead, the analysis focuses on the elements of the lodestar formula, a 

reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable number of hours.

A. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Under the Vaccine Act, special masters, in general, should use the forum 

(District of Columbia) rate in the lodestar calculation. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1349. 

However, when the bulk of the work is done outside the District of Columbia and 

the attorneys’ rates are substantially lower, the Davis County exception applies,

and petitioner’s counsel is paid according to the local rate. Id. at 1349 (citing 

Davis Cty. Solid Waste Mgmt. and Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. U.S. 

Env’t Prot. Agency, 169 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). In this case, all the 

attorneys’ work was done in New Jersey. The local rate is substantially similar to 

the forum rate. Therefore, the Davis County exception does not apply.

Ms. Midnight requests the following hourly rates for the work of her 

counsel, Mr. Sadaka: $362.95 per hour for work performed in 2016; $376.78 per 

hour for work performed in 2017; $396.00 per hour for work performed in 2018; 

$405.00 per hour for work performed in 2019; $422.00 per hour for work 

performed in 2020; and $440.00 per hour for work performed in 2021. Pet’r’s 

Initial Mot. at 5; Pet’r’s Renewed Mot. at 5. These rates are consistent with what 

Mr. Sadaka has previously been awarded for his Vaccine Program work. See, e.g., 

Dew v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1238V, 2019 WL 2317303, at *2
10

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 30, 2019); Miller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 

18-587V, 2021 WL 3674659, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2021). Petitioner 

also requests reasonable hourly rates for work performed by the firm’s paralegal. 

Accordingly, the requested hourly rates are reasonable.

B. Reasonable Number of Hours

The second factor in the lodestar formula is a reasonable number of hours. 

Reasonable hours are not excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. See

Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521. The Secretary did not directly challenge any of the 

requested hours as unreasonable.

The undersigned has reviewed the submitted billing records and finds the 

time billed to be reasonable. The timesheets provide sufficiently detailed 

descriptions of the work performed. See fee exhibits A (requesting $38,576.90) 

and C (requesting $4,942.70). 

Mr. Sadaka submitted his invoices before the oral argument. Mr. Sadaka 

was prepared and advocated persuasively. The undersigned will award an 

additional $1,500 for Mr. Sadaka’s work. 

Accordingly, a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs is $45,019.60. 

C. Costs

Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be 

reasonable. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992), 

aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner requests a total of $3,205.70 in 

attorneys’ costs. This amount is comprised of acquiring medical records, postage, 

the Court’s filing fee, and expert fees for Dr. Kinsbourne. The bulk of the costs 

represent fees incurred by counsel in attempting to secure an expert opinion by Dr. 

Kinsbourne. See fee exhibit B. 

The costs associated with Dr. Kinsbourne are not reasonable. Preliminarily, 

the undersigned has commented that Dr. Kinsbourne’s usefulness as an expert has 

declined because he has not practiced neurology in decades and the quality of his 

opinions has slipped. See, e.g., Ellis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-

336V, 2019 WL 3315326, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 24, 2019); Hoskins v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-071V, 2017 WL 3379270, at *5 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. July 12, 2017) (“[A]ttorneys representing petitioners are placed on 
11

notice that compensation for Dr. Kinsbourne should not be assumed 

automatically.”). 

More importantly, Ms. Midnight has not evidenced a justification for his 

work. Dr. Kinsbourne’s invoice is a single line, noting he received a retainer of 

$2,000. Fee exhibit B at pdf 19. A retainer does not evidence the work Dr. 

Kinsbourne performed. See Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine 

Injury Compensation Program, Section X. Chapter 3. ¶ A (“With regard to 

attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, the particular tasks for which fees are claimed, 

the amount of time spent on that task, the person who performed the task, and that 

person’s billed hourly rate must be identified in contemporaneous, dated 

records.”); see also Dahl v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-98V, 2018 WL 

6818741, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2018). Without some information 

from Dr. Kinsbourne, the undersigned cannot evaluate whether his proposed 

hourly rate is reasonable and cannot determine whether the number of hours he 

spent is reasonable. Accordingly, due to the deficiency in the submission 

regarding Dr. Kinsbourne’s work, this requested item cannot be allowed. 

For the remainder of the costs, Ms. Midnight has provided adequate 

documentation supporting all of the requested costs, and all appear reasonable in 

the undersigned’s experience. Ms. Midnight is therefore awarded $1,205.70 in 

costs.

IV. Conclusion

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). Accordingly, I award a total of $46,225.30 (representing 

$45,019.60 in attorneys’ fees and $1,205.70 in attorneys’ costs) as a lump sum in 

the form of a check jointly payable to Ms. Midnight and Ms. Midnight’s counsel, 

Mr. Mark Sadaka. 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.2

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment 

by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master