In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-322V

Filed: August 3, 2017

Not for Publication

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

BERENICE DORRIS, *

*

 Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

Jeffrey S. Pop, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Jason C. Bougere, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On April 21, 2014, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012) alleging that her receipt of Tdap vaccine on March 

1, 2012 caused her to develop Type 1 diabetes. On May 8, 2017, petitioner filed a Stipulation of 

Dismissal under Vaccine Rule 21(a). On May 9, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order 

Concluding Proceedings pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(B). 

On July 19, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner 

requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $59,873.00 and attorneys’ costs in the amount of 

 1Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 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). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that 

all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets 

or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar 

information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a 

decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the 

document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within 

the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

Attorneys’ fees and costs decision; 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
2

$34,879.81, for a total request of $94,752.81. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner 

filed a signed statement saying she did not incur any costs related to the prosecution of her claim. 

On August 3, 2017, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion explaining he is 

satisfied that this case meets the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs 

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1)(A)-(B). Resp. at 2. Respondent “respectfully recommends 

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

fees and costs.” Id. at 3. 

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

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1). It is not necessary for a petitioner to prevail in the case-in-chief in 

order to receive a fee award as long as petitioner brought the claim in “good faith and there was a 

reasonable basis for the claim.” Id. The special master has “wide discretion in determining the 

reasonableness” of attorneys’ fees and costs. Perreira v. Sec’y of HHS, 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 

(1992), aff’d, 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of HHS, 3 

F.3d 1517, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Vaccine program special masters are also entitled to use their 

prior experience in reviewing fee applications.”).

Based on her experience and review of the billing records submitted by petitioner, the 

undersigned finds petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs request reasonable. Therefore, the 

undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

Accordingly, the court awards $94,752.81, representing attorneys’ fees and costs. The 

award shall be in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and Jeffrey S. Popp & 

Associates in the amount of $94,752.81.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2017 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.