# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 322 V

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Not for Publication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 COSTS 1

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 , 20 17, 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 at torneys’ fees in the amount of $ 59,873.00 and att orneys’ costs in the amount of

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal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 w ith 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 t hat

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 f its 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 costs2 $ 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.

T he 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 billi ng records submitted by petitioner, the

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

undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for A ttorne ys’ Fees and Costs.

Accordingly, the court awards $94,752.81 , represent ing 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 Pu rsuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing t he right to seek review.