In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-836V 

Filed: April 27, 2016 

Not for Publication 

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

DOROTHY BUNDRICK, *

 * Attorney’s Fees and Costs 

 Petitioner, * 

 v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 * 

 Respondent. * 

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

Lawrence R. Cohan, Esq., Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner. 

Darryl R. Wishard, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION AWARDING FINAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Roth, Special Master: 

On March 10, 2016, I issued a Decision awarding petitioner $17,870.07 in attorneys’ fees 

and costs. On March 30, 2016, respondent timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that 

Decision. On April 10, 2016, petitioner filed a Response to respondent’s Motion. In his 

Response, petitioner’s counsel requested an additional $1,100.00 in attorneys’ fees for several 

hours of brief writing. 

 Today I issued a Ruling denying respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration. I incorporate 

that Ruling here. To briefly summarize, respondent did not object to petitioner’s counsel’s 

hourly rate, hours expended, or costs incurred associated with the prosecution of his client’s 

case. Instead, respondent stated, without support or documentation, that she believed the fees 

award for this case should be approximately $2,000.00 to $4,000.00 less than the sum petitioner 

requested. I awarded petitioner the entirety of the sum requested. Respondent then filed a 

Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that I acted contrary to law and that the interest of justice 

necessitated a different result. I denied respondent’s motion.

 

1

 Because this published decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be posted on the 

United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 (codified as 

amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to delete 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 delete such 

material from public access. 
2 

 Because petitioner’s counsel has been required to engage in considerable motions 

practice since he first filed his application, he has incurred additional fees and costs. In his 

Response to respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner’s counsel stated that he 

incurred an additional $1,100.00 in fees and costs associated with drafting his Response. His 

associate, David Carney, billed at a rate of $275.00 an hour for four hours, which were spent 

conducting legal research, writing, reviewing, and editing the brief. Response at 4, n.1. 

Determining whether an application for fees is reasonable is a matter within the 

discretion of the presiding special master. See Carrington v. Sec’y, HHS, 85 Fed. Cl. 319, 322-

323 (2008). Special masters are afforded considerable discretion when considering motions for 

attorney fees. For instance, it is within a special master’s discretion to reduce fees sua sponte,

without warning to petitioners. Sabella v. Sec’y, HHS, 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). 

When considering motions for attorney fees and costs, the Court employs the lodestar 

method. Schueman v. Sec’y, HHS, No. 04-693V, 2010 WL 3421956 at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Aug. 11, 2010); see also Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 94 (1989) (“[T]he initial estimate 

of a reasonable attorney’s fee is properly calculated by multiplying the number of hours 

reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.”) (internal citations 

omitted). That said, a special master is not required to conduct a “line-by-line” analysis of a fee 

request. Broekelschen v. Sec’y, HHS, 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). 

I have reviewed petitioner’s application for the additional $1,100.00 for fees incurred for 

the drafting of petitioner’s Response to respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and find it to be 

reasonable. Petitioner’s counsel has established that he is entitled to the requested sum pursuant 

to § 15(e)(1). For the reasons contained herein, I award the amount of $1,100.00 in the 

form of a check payable jointly to petitioner, Dorothy Bundrick, and petitioner’s counsel of 

record, Lawrence Cohan, Esq., for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Mindy Michaels Roth 

 Mindy Michaels Roth 

 Special Master 

 

2 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. See

Vaccine Rule 11(a).