In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

CHRISTOPHER LOVING *

and CARLA LOVING, * No. 02-469V

parents of CAMILLE LOVING, * Special Master Christian J. Moran 

*

Petitioners, *

* Filed: July 7, 2016

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Attorneys’ fees and costs; 

* reasonable fees for fees; 

Respondent. * downward departure from lodestar.

*

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

William Dobreff, Dobreff & Dobreff, Clinton Township, MI, for Petitioners;

Darryl R. Wishard, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent. 

PUBLISHED DECISION ON 

SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS1

The December 15, 2015 decision stated there was one final issue to resolve 

in this case. As this decision proves, that statement was incorrect. Now in dispute 

is another motion for attorneys’ fees filed by the Lovings on January 6, 2016. For 

 

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. 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

Mr. Dobreff’s services from May 12, 2014, to date, the Lovings request an 

additional $8,362.50 in attorneys’ fees. This represents 33.45 hours of attorney’s 

time billed at $250.00 per hour. The Secretary proposes the motion for fees be 

completely denied, with the Lovings receiving no additional attorneys’ fees. The 

Lovings are awarded $2,090.63. 

I. Procedural History Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs2

The procedural history for this case is available in significant detail in two 

previous decisions. See Interim Fees Decision, issued Sept. 10, 2014, 2014 WL 

10558839 (awarding $140,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs); Expert Fees 

Decision, issued Dec. 15, 2016, 2015 WL 10579257. The first decision addresses

Mr. Dobreff’s interim attorneys’ fees, and the second addresses the expert costs for 

Dr. Shuman. Thus, because the September 2014 decision awarded the Lovings 

attorneys’ fees for work performed through February 6, 2014, the procedural 

history below will focus on February 2014, to present.

Section A discusses the steps leading to the 2014 decision awarding 

attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis. Section B describes the litigation 

over adjudicating Dr. Shuman’s fee. Because the Lovings seek an award of 

attorneys’ fees for Mr. Dobreff’s work performed during this period, Mr. Dobreff’s 

activities are set forth in some detail. Section C discusses the Lovings’ pending 

application for attorneys’ fees and the Secretary’s response. 

A. 2014 Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on an Interim Basis

Because the Lovings received compensation in the September 20, 2013

decision, they are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). The Lovings filed their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs 

on February 19, 2014. The Lovings submitted more than 50 exhibits, totaling 

more than 200 pages. Pet. for Fees and Costs, filed Feb. 19, 2014. 

 

2 The bulk of the procedural history regarding the Lovings’ claim that vaccines harmed 

their child is irrelevant to this decision. 
3

After discussions between the attorneys, the Lovings agreed to reduce the 

amount sought in attorneys’ fees and costs not related to Dr. Shuman, and the 

Secretary agreed not to object to the compromised amount. The parties did not 

reconcile their differences regarding Dr. Shuman’s fees. 

The Secretary memorialized her objections to the charges for Dr. Shuman’s

work, identifying several challenges to aspects of Dr. Shuman’s invoice. Resp’t’s

Resp., filed July 16, 2014, at 5-6. 

After reviewing the submissions, the undersigned recognized that the dispute 

involving Dr. Shuman would probably take significant time to resolve. Thus, the 

undersigned held a status conference on September 2, 2014. In that status 

conference, the parties expressed an interest in seeking mediation to resolve the 

expert fees and costs, and the undersigned recommended an interim award of 

undisputed attorneys’ fees and costs. That recommendation resulted in the 

September 2014 interim fees decision awarding the Lovings $140,000.00 in 

attorneys’ fees. Interim Fees Decision, issued Sept. 10, 2014. Additionally, on the 

same day, an order referred the disputed expert fees and costs to ADR with Special 

Master Corcoran. Order, filed Sept. 10, 2014. 

B. 2015 Decision Awarding Attorneys’ Costs for an Expert 

The Lovings incurred all but 0.3 hours of the pending request trying to 

resolve Dr. Shuman’s expert fees. For convenience, this litigation is divided into 

four phases. 

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution. Special Master Corcoran conducted a 

telephonic ADR status conference on September 22, 2014. The parties, however, 

were unable to come to an agreement through the mediation. Therefore, Special 

Master Corcoran removed the case from the ADR process. Order, issued Oct. 7, 

2014. Mr. Dobreff spent 1.55 hours in ADR.3 Pet. for Fees and Costs, filed Jan. 6, 

2016, exhibit 1 at 2. 

 

3 The amount of 1.55 hours includes the 0.3 hours spent in May and June 2014. 
4

2. November 2014 Brief. Following the ADR status conferences, both 

parties requested an opportunity to elaborate on their positions regarding Dr. 

Shuman’s expert fees. The Secretary filed a supplemental brief on October 17, 

2014, stating additional bases for her objections to petitioners’ request for 

$284,203.07 in expert fees and costs. Although the Secretary continued to accept 

the proposed hourly rate as reasonable, the Secretary presented two additional 

arguments for why she did not accept Dr. Shuman’s 811 hours as reasonable. 

First, the Secretary compared Dr. Shuman’s work to other cases in the Vaccine 

Program that have involved relatively large requests for expert fees. Second, the 

Secretary compared Dr. Shuman’s work in the present case to other cases in which 

Dr. Shuman participated. Resp’t’s Suppl. Br., filed Oct. 17, 2014. 

On November 5, 2014, the Lovings filed a response to the Secretary’s

objections, including another set of exhibits, again labeled 1 through 10.

4

 A 

significant portion of the Lovings’ response recited the procedural aspects of the 

case and/or listed topics that Dr. Shuman addressed. Pet’rs’ Resp., filed Nov. 5, 

2014, at 2 (discussing Court’s Opinion and Order), 7-19. Much (if not all) of this 

presentation was not helpful as the undersigned was familiar with the litigation and

had reviewed Dr. Shuman’s invoices describing his work. 

The Lovings did not answer many of the fundamental objections raised in 

the Secretary’s initial July 16, 2014 response. For example, although the Secretary 

had identified entries for which Dr. Shuman had charged time but not listed any 

task, the Lovings did not obtain supplemental information to fill this gap.5 The 

 

4 Of these November 5, 2014 exhibits, the only meaningful one is exhibit 10, a second 

affidavit from Dr. Shuman, which updated his previous affidavit, exhibit 38. 

5 The Lovings asserted that “Respondent did not object to lack of specificity in Dr. 

Shuman’s billing or any block billing. There was no suggestion by Respondent’s experts that it 

was unreasonable or unnecessary to review and analyze an article relied on by Dr. Shuman in 

Respondent’s review.” Pet’rs’ Resp., filed Nov. 5, 2014, at 5. 

This statement is accurate only if the source of the Secretary’s objections is restricted to 

the October 17, 2014 brief. In the earlier response, the Secretary argued that Dr. Shuman’s 

invoice was vague and the time he spent reviewing articles was excessive. Resp’t’s Resp., filed 

July 14, 2014, at 5-6. 
5

Lovings did, however, directly address some of the Secretary’s supplemental 

October 17, 2014 arguments. 

In this phase, Mr. Dobreff has invoiced for 17.8 hours. More than 12 hours 

were attributed to either researching or drafting the November 5, 2014 brief. The 

remaining time was primarily communications (letters, emails, and telephone calls) 

with Dr. Shuman. Pet. for Fees and Costs, filed Jan. 6, 2016, at exhibit 1 at 2-3. 

3. 2015 Briefing. Once the undersigned again took up the matter after these 

briefs, the undersigned requested additional information from the Lovings to 

explain the work that Dr. Shuman performed. Order, filed June 24, 2015. 

On July 15, 2015, the Lovings filed a status report that did not provide much 

helpful information. In addition, the Lovings filed another set of exhibits, which 

largely confused the state of the record because the Lovings cited to the exhibits 

appended to the status report, rather than the exhibits filed during the merits 

phase.6 

The undersigned ordered the Lovings to file an electronic version of a 

spreadsheet that reproduced Dr. Shuman’s invoice in a series of rows and columns. 

See order, issued July 27, 2015. The Lovings filed the electronic spreadsheet on 

August 6, 2015. Pet’rs’ Status Rep., filed Aug. 6, 2015. That spreadsheet was 

valuable in analyzing the Lovings’ claim. 

After receiving the Lovings’ spreadsheet, the undersigned ordered the 

Secretary to analyze Dr. Shuman’s work on a line-by-line basis. Order, filed Sept. 

4, 2015. The Secretary explicitly disputed almost half of Dr. Shuman’s bill, 

$132,718.33 of the $282,130.86 requested. Resp’t’s Resp., filed Sept. 17, 2015.

From January 20, 2015 through October 20, 2015, Mr. Dobreff has invoiced 

for 13.4 hours. More than half this time was associated with preparing the July 15, 

 

6 For example, during the merits phase of the case, the Lovings filed Dr. Shuman’s 

annotation to his bibliography as exhibit 90. The Lovings reproduced this annotation as exhibit 7 

to the July 15, 2015 status report. 
6

2015 status report. Pet. for Fees and Costs, filed Jan. 6, 2016, at exhibit 1 at 3-4. 

Mr. Dobreff did not charge for producing the electronic spreadsheet. 

4. Wrap-Up. The Expert Fees Decision awarded the Lovings’ two-thirds of 

Dr. Shuman’s requested amount, or $188,087.22, plus full costs of $1,322.03. In 

reviewing this decision and communicating with Dr. Shuman, Mr. Dobreff spent 

0.7 hours. Id., at exhibit 1 at 5. 

C. Petitioners’ 2016 Motion for Additional Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Lovings’ January 6, 2016 motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is 

substantially similar to the motion they filed in February 2014, to include many 

moot points, such as Dr. Shuman’s hourly rate. The motion does include 

significant information regarding how petitioners’ attorney determined his 

reasonable hourly rate. Id., at 2-3.

Identical to the February 2014 interim attorneys’ fees motion, the January 

2016 motion states that the “fees and costs are reasonable in light of the length of 

the case, complexity of the issues, the appeal and the underlying injury of infantile 

spasms.” There is no specific discussion regarding the substance of the current 

motion for fees, a prolonged expert fee dispute. 

The thrust of the Secretary’s opposition is that “[a]ll of the work performed 

by counsel after May 12, 2014 was in an attempt to correct the deficient evidence 

regarding Dr. Shuman’s invoices, all of which should have been filed with the 

Motion on February 19, 2015.” Resp’t’s Resp., filed Jan. 15, 2016, at 3. 

In large part, the rest of the Secretary’s opposition reiterates shortcomings 

raised in the December 15, 2015 decision regarding Dr. Shuman’s expert fees. The 

Secretary highlighted that much of petitioner’s presentation regarding Dr. 

Shuman’s fees was unhelpful, in some cases confused the record, and that there 

was no excuse for this as “petitioners knew up front what was expected of them 

when submitting Dr. Shuman’s invoices for payment.” Id. at 4. 

Petitioners did not reply to the Secretary’s response to their motion. 
7

II. Standards for Adjudicating Applications for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs7

The Vaccine Act authorizes special masters to award only “reasonable” 

attorneys’ fees. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–15(e)(1). To determine the reasonableness of a 

request for attorneys’ fees, the court must first conduct a lodestar analysis in which 

a reasonable hourly rate is multiplied by a reasonable number of hours. See Avera 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Saxton 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, 

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

of the fee award based on specific findings. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. 

The Federal Circuit has endorsed awards of attorneys’ fees for litigation fee 

disputes. Schuenemeyer v. United States, 776 F.2d 329, 333 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

Special Masters have generally allowed “fees for fees,” albeit with reductions 

consistent with the reasonableness and specific findings standards applied to 

attorneys’ fees. See Turkupolis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-351V, 

2015 WL 393343, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 9, 2015) (reducing fees for 

duplicative and excessive work); Sucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

07-58V, 2013 WL 5532179, at *18 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 17, 2013) (not 

compensating petitioners for time spent litigating an issue for which there was no 

basis to litigate); Brown v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-426V, 2013 

WL 2350541, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 6, 2013) (reducing fees for fees by 

two-thirds based on two out of three of the primary issues in petitioner’s filings 

being unreasonable); Garcia v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 07-286V, 

2011 WL 6941702, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 13, 2011) (not compensating 

an attorney for work necessitated by a problem the attorney created).

III. Analysis

Consistent with Avera, this analysis contains two components. The first is a 

determination of the lodestar. The second is adjustment to the lodestar. Avera, 

515 F.3d at 1348. 

 

7 The Expert Fees Decision lists additional criteria. 2015 WL 10579257, at *8-9. 
8

A. Lodestar

The well-known lodestar formula includes a reasonable hourly rate and a 

reasonable number of hours. The Lovings propose compensating Mr. Dobreff at a 

rate of $250.00 per hour, and the Secretary does not object to that rate. The 

undersigned also finds that rate reasonable. 

For the reasonable number of hours, the undersigned has reviewed the 

timesheets. At a superficial level, the number of hours Mr. Dobreff spent is 

reasonable. For example, he spent 0.15 hours preparing a motion for enlargement 

of time on November 3, 2014, and 0.20 hours reviewing an order on July 29, 2015. 

As discussed below, one problem is what the attorney produced, not how much 

time was spent. 

Consequently, for the first component, all Mr. Dobreff’s hours are 

tentatively accepted. This results in a lodestar determination of $8,362.50 (33.45 

hours multiplied by $250.00 per hour). 

B. Adjustments to Lodestar

After the lodestar is calculated, the amount awarded in attorneys’ fees may 

be adjusted, either upward or downward, “based on other specific findings.” 

Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348, citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). 

“Adjusting the lodestar has been condoned for situations in which the prevailing 

party’s attorney’s performance or conduct somehow is not factored into the

lodestar calculation.” Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., 811 F.3d 

479, 485 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Adjustments to the lodestar occur rarely. See Masias v. 

Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-697V, 2013 WL 658439, at *6-7 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2013) (rejecting the Secretary’s argument that the fee for 

litigating attorneys’ fees should be reduced because it was disproportionate to the 

amount sought in attorneys’ fees); Masias v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., No. 

99-697V, 2010 WL 1783542, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 14, 2010) (adjusting 

lodestar for filing an unsuccessful motion for review after the Court criticized the 

motion for review). 

Here, two findings justify a reduction to the lodestar calculation. First, Mr. 

Dobreff’s lack of oversight of Dr. Shuman fundamentally caused the dispute over 

expert fees. Second, Mr. Dobreff’s contributions to resolve the dispute over 

attorneys’ fees were largely ineffective. 
9

1. Counsel’s Failure to Monitor Dr. Shuman

The Expert Fees Decision details deficiencies in Dr. Shuman’s billing 

practices that led to a significant reduction in expert fees. 2015 WL 10579257, at 

*9-15. These major deficiencies included poor item descriptions, redundant 

research work, and billing for administrative tasks. Id. at *9-12. These major 

deficiencies, ultimately, are Mr. Dobreff’s responsibility. See id. at *8 (citing 

cases). 

These consistent deficiencies are inexcusable because they occurred very 

early in the case, and were obvious. Dr. Shuman’s Feb. 25, 2005 invoice contained 

charges for which no task was listed. Id. at *13. Despite this red flag, the 

subsequent June 21, 2006 invoice also contained entries without tasks. Id. The 

lack of any description for some tasks places Dr. Shuman’s invoices well outside 

of the boundaries of what could be considered reasonable billing practices. 

In the Lovings’ January 6, 2016 petition for fees and costs, they had a 

chance to respond to the Expert Fees Decision. The motion does not challenge 

either the legal proposition that counsel has the duty to monitor expert invoices, or 

the factual finding that Mr. Dobreff did not monitor Dr. Shuman’s invoices 

adequately. 

Had Mr. Dobreff corrected Dr. Shuman’s billing practices early, Dr. Shuman

would not have continued to submit defective invoices. An early correction by Mr. 

Dobreff, therefore, would have eliminated the disputes over large portions of Dr. 

Shuman’s bills. If there were no dispute over Dr. Shuman’s bills, then, it follows, 

that there would be no attorneys’ fees for litigating Dr. Shuman’s fees. Mr. 

Dobreff’s conduct (or more precisely his lack of action) is at the root of the dispute 

over attorneys’ fees that took place from September 21, 2014 through December 

17, 2015. An attorney “will not be compensated for solving a problem that he 

created.” Garcia, 2011 WL 6941702, at *10. 

2. Counsel’s Work during the Fee Dispute Was Not Helpful

The previous finding concerns Mr. Dobreff’s activities that largely caused 

the dispute of Dr. Shuman’s bill. This finding concerns Mr. Dobreff’s activities 

after the dispute over Dr. Shuman’s fee began. 
10

The Secretary raised questions about many of Dr. Shuman’s entries. 

Resp’t’s Resp., filed July 17, 2014; Resp’t’s Suppl. Br., filed Oct. 17, 2014. 

Counsel’s choice was either to defend the entries by providing additional 

explanation, or to exercise billing judgment by removing the entries. Here, Mr. 

Dobreff attempted to justify the time. However, this defense was largely 

ineffective, probably because the passage of time and loss of memory prevented 

Dr. Shuman from recapturing information that should have been recorded years 

earlier. In absence of a plausible defense of specific entries on the invoice, the 

appropriate response to the Secretary’s objection would have been to remove the 

charges. See Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (requiring fee applicant to exercise “billing 

judgment”). 

When ordered to justify Dr. Shuman’s invoices, the Lovings could not. 

Their July 15, 2015 status report actually made their claim for an award of expert 

fees more confusing. Mr. Dobreff spent hours reviewing the hearing transcript, but 

this task was not requested, and did not produce relevant information. 

The Lovings’ most useful contribution to the resolution of the dispute over 

expert fees was the creation of the electronic spreadsheet. However, as mentioned 

earlier, Mr. Dobreff appropriately did not charge for this clerical task. 

The electronic spreadsheet enabled the undersigned to turn to the Secretary 

for additional assistance. The Secretary’s line-by-line review of Dr. Shuman’s 

invoices must have taken a considerable amount of time, but greatly reduced the 

scope of the dispute. In a way, the Secretary rescued Mr. Dobreff by removing the 

bulk of Dr. Shuman’s hours from the dispute. 

The undersigned prefers not to create a litany of complaints about Mr. 

Dobreff. After all, Mr. Dobreff helped his clients obtain a settlement that should 

assist them in caring for their daughter. This is a significant accomplishment, one 

for which Mr. Dobreff has received compensation. Interim Fees Decision, issued 

Sept. 10, 2014. However, Mr. Dobreff’s work in the litigation over Dr. Shuman’s 
11

fees fell well short of the quality that is expected, especially given the amount of 

money in dispute.

8

 

3. Assessment

These two findings support an adjustment to the lodestar. It should be 

emphasized that this type of adjustment happens in exceptional cases. The present 

case is exceptional because (1) Mr. Dobreff’s inattention to Dr. Shuman’s invoices, 

which were blatantly problematic, was the primary cause of the dispute over Dr. 

Shuman’s fee, and (2) Mr. Dobreff contributed relatively little to assist in resolving 

Dr. Shuman’s fees and, in some ways, made the resolution process more 

cumbersome. 

Under these circumstances, an appropriate award is 25 percent of the amount 

requested. The Lovings are awarded $2,090.63. 

IV. Conclusion

The Lovings are awarded $2,090.63 in additional fees for Mr. Dobreff. This 

award is in addition to the amount for attorneys’ fees and costs awarded on 

September 10, 2014. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

8 Petitioners’ January 6, 2016 motion similarly reflects a relative lack of attention from 

Mr. Dobreff. The motion does not address the fundamental reason why the dispute over Dr. 

Shuman’s fees was so protracted.