Ortiz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-475V

LISA ORTIZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner,

v. Filed: February 5, 2026

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

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

Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

On April 27, 2022, Lisa Ortiz filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration mild subdeltoid bursitis, and chronic pain syndrome as a result of her October 22, 2019 influenza vaccination. Petition, ECF No. 1. On May 13, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 42.

1Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made

publicly accessible and will be posted 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $42,482.11 (representing $41,547.60 in fees plus $934.51 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed July 25, 2025, ECF No. 47. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that Petitioner incurred no personal outof -pocket expenses. ECF No. 34-4.

Respondent reacted to the motion on August 11, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case and deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. ECF No. 48 at 2-4. Petitioner filed a reply thereafter requesting an award of fees and costs as indicated in the Motion. ECF No. 49.

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a reduction in the amount of fees and costs to be awarded appropriate, for the reasons stated below.

ANALYSIS

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). 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 & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011).

The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1.

3

Petitioner’s 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, 461 U.S. at 434.

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

A. Hourly Rates

The hourly rates requested for paralegal work performed herein are reasonable and shall be applied. However, Mark Sadaka was previously awarded the hourly rate of $562.00 for work performed in 2025, less than requested herein. See Tirone v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0869V, Slip Op. 151 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 21, 2025). I find no reason to deviate from such reasoned determination and it otherwise is not the practice of OSM to adjust prior rate determinations upward in later cases. See Jefferson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1882V, 2023 WL 387051 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2023). Application of the foregoing reduces the amount of fees to be awarded herein by $721.50. 3 All other time billed to the matter was reasonable and shall be awarded.

B. Litigation Costs

I have also reviewed the requested costs and find the majority of the costs to be reasonable, with the exception of an administrative fee of $50.00 charged herein with no proffered description or additional details regarding this charge. See ECF No. 47-1 at 31. Counsel should note that it is not the practice of OSM to reimburse Petitioners for administrative charges. It is well established in the Program that administrative work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); See also Dingle v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-579V, 2014 WL 630473, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 24, 2014); Mostovoy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 2016 WL 720969, *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 4, 2016). Thus, I hereby reduce the requested costs by $50.00 to account for this issue.

3 This amount consists of reducing attorney Sadaka’s 2025 rate and is calculated as follows: $627.00 -

$562.00 = $65.00 x 11.10 hours billed in 2025 = $721.50.

4

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $41,710.61 (representing $40,826.10 in fees plus $884.51 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.