In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1076V 

(not to be published)

MARILYNNE LESHER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 17, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Lawrence R. Cohan, Saltz, Morgeluzzi & Bendesky, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1

On August 8, 2017, Marilynne Lesher 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 alleges that she suffered a full-thickness rotator cuff tear in her 

left shoulder caused in fact by an influenza vaccine she received on November 11, 2016. 

(Petition at 1). On December 28, 2020, a decision was issued awarding compensation to 

Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. (ECF No. 53). 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012).
2

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, dated February 12, 

2021 (ECF No. 55), requesting a total award of $58,392.37 (representing $41,189.30 in 

fees and $17,203.07 in costs). In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner filed a 

signed statement indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (Id. at 53).

Respondent reacted to the motion on February 26, 2021, indicating that he is satisfied 

that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this 

case, and deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. (ECF No. 

57). Petitioner did not file a reply thereafter. 

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s requests and find a 

reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason listed below. 

ANALYSIS

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 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. at 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s

fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Id. at 484 n.1. 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.
3

ATTORNEY FEES

A. Hourly Rates 

Petitioner requests compensation for attorney Lawrence Cohan at the following 

rates: $420 per hour for time billed in 2017; $440 per hour for time billed in 2018; $450 

per hour for time billed in 2019; and $484 per hour for time billed in 2020-21. (ECF No. 

55 at 1). Some of these rates require adjustment. In particular, Mr. Cohan has previously 

been awarded the rate of $400 per hour for time billed in 2017 and $470 per hour for time 

billed in 2020 – in each case, less than he requests herein. See Stout v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., No. 17-1077V, 2020 WL 522937 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 11, 2020); 

Shelly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0519V, 2020 WL 5637796 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Aug. 21, 2020); Randolph v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1231V, 

2020 WL 5909092, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 8, 2020); Green v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 16-08V, Slip Op. 62, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. February 23, 2021). I agree 

with the reasoning from these prior cases, and therefore reduce Mr. Cohan’s rates to 

$400 for time billed in 2017 and $470 per hour for time billed in 2020. This results in a 

reduction of $267.20.3

The requested rates from 2018 and 2019, however, are reasonable and consistent 

with what Mr. Cohan has previously received. I also find the requested rate increase for 

2021 to be reasonable. I therefore will employ those rates in calculating fees – and since 

I am making no changes based on determinations about the reasonableness of work 

performed, only the aforementioned reduction for 2017 and 2020 time will be made to the 

total fees requested.

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner requests $17,203.07 in overall costs. (ECF No. 55 at 2). This amount is 

comprised of obtaining medical records, expert fees and reports and the Court’s filing fee. 

I have reviewed all of the requested costs and find them to be reasonable and shall award 

it in full. 

CONCLUSION

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

15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I 

3 This amount consists of ($420 - $400 = $20 x 7.2 hrs = $144) + ($484 - $470 = $14 x 8.8 hrs = $123.20) 

+ $267.20. 
4

award a total of $58,125.17 (representing $40,922.10 in fees and $17,203.07 in costs) as 

a lump sum in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the 

Court), the Clerk 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.