VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00995
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00995
Petitioner: LUKAS BUNDONIS
Filed: 2018-07-11
Decided: 2025-04-25
Vaccine: Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2014-10-13
Condition: autoimmune encephalitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 144278

AI-assisted case summary:
Lukas Bundonis filed a petition for compensation on July 11, 2018, alleging that he suffered autoimmune encephalitis as a result of receiving Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B vaccinations on October 13, 2014. The case has been pending for over six years, with extensive filings of medical records and expert reports from both parties. This decision addresses a motion for interim attorneys' fees and costs filed by Petitioner on March 22, 2024. The Special Master found that the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis, and that an interim award was justified due to the protracted nature of the proceedings and accumulated fees. The court awarded $71,536.99 in attorneys' fees after a ten percent reduction for administrative tasks and excessive interoffice communication. Costs were awarded in the amount of $72,741.33, including expert fees for Dr. Kelkar, Dr. Gershwin, Dr. Willer, and Dr. Marks, with a slight adjustment to Dr. Marks' hourly rate. The total award for interim attorneys' fees and costs is $144,278.32, payable jointly to Petitioner and his counsel.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00995-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-20
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/25/2025) regarding 119 DECISION of Special Master - Interim Attorney's Fees. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (kis) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: April 25, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LUKAS BUNDONIS, * No. 18-995V
*
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Young
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kathleen Margaret Loucks, Lommen Abdo Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner
Alec Saxe, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
On March 22, 2024, Lukas Bundonis (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for interim attorneys’
fees and costs, requesting a total of $153,258.12. App. Int. Att’ys’ Fees & Costs at 1, ECF No.
110-1. This amount consists of $79,485.54 in fees and $73,772.58 in expenses. App. Int. Att’ys’
Fees & Costs, ECF No. 110-1 [hereinafter “Fees App.”]. On April 5, 2024, Respondent filed his
response to Petitioner’s motion. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF No. 112. In his response, Respondent stated
that he would “defer[] to the [S]pecial [M]aster to determine whether or not [P]etitioner has met
the legal standard for an interim fees and costs award . . .” Id. at 2. For the reasons stated below,
I will award interim attorneys’ fees and costs for Petitioner’s counsel at this time.
1 This Decision shall be posted 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). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to
the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete
medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the
rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree
that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from
public access.

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 2 of 8
I. Procedural History
On July 11, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program”).2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012); Pet.,
ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered autoimmune encephalitis as a result of receiving the
Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B vaccinations on October 13, 2014. Pet. at ¶ 1. On July 12, 2018,
Petitioner filed an affidavit and certificate of service. ECF Nos. 4–5. On August 9, 2018, Petitioner
filed his first batch of medical records. ECF No. 10. Petitioner filed medical records and his
statement of completion on August 27, 2018. ECF Nos. 11–12. Petitioner filed additional medical
records on October 12, 2018, and July 9, 2019. ECF Nos. 13, 26. On August 8, 2019, Petitioner
filed medical records and a statement of completion. ECF Nos. 30, 32. Petitioner filed additional
medical records on September 13, 2019. ECF No. 35.
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report on November 26, 2019. ECF No. 39. Petitioner filed
additional medical records on June 2, 2020. ECF No. 49. On August 3, 2020, Petitioner filed his
expert report by M. Eric Gershwin, M.D., M.A.C.P., M.A.C.R., along with medical literature. ECF
No. 52. Respondent filed a responsive expert report from Elizabeth M. LaRusso, M.D., on May
19, 2021. ECF No. 58. Respondent subsequently filed an expert report from J. William Lindsey,
M.D., on May 21, 2021. ECF No. 59. Respondent filed medical literature on July 19, 2021. ECF
Nos. 62-63.
Petitioner filed medical records on September 21, 2021. ECF No. 66. On September 27,
2021, Petitioner filed an expert report by Tracey Marks, M.D., along with medical literature. ECF
No. 68. On December 6, 2021, Petitioner filed an expert report by Justin Aaron Willer, M.D. ECF
No. 71. Petitioner continued to file medical records from March 2022 to May 2022. ECF Nos. 75,
79, 81, 84. On October 7, 2022, Petitioner filed medical literature. ECF No. 89. Petitioner filed
additional medical records on November 4, 2022. ECF No. 91.
Respondent filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. LaRusso and Dr. Lindsey, along
with medical literature, on November 7, 2022. ECF Nos. 93–94. On February 6, 2023, Petitioner
filed a rebuttal expert report from Dr. Marks along with medical literature. ECF No. 96. Petitioner
filed additional medical literature on March 28, 2023. ECF No. 99. Respondent filed a
supplemental expert report by Dr. Lindsey on July 14, 2023. ECF No. 106. Petitioner filed medical
literature on September 8, 2023. ECF No. 108.
Petitioner filed his first motion for interim attorney’s fees and costs on March 22, 2024.
ECF No. 110. Respondent filed his response on April 5, 2024. ECF No. 112. Petitioner filed
additional medical records on April 11, 2024. ECF No. 113. A hearing order was entered on May
15, 2024, that set this matter for an entitlement hearing for November 10–11, 2025. ECF No. 117.
This matter is now ripe for consideration.
II. Availability of Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation,
all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).
2

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 3 of 8
A. Good Faith and Reasonable Basis
Under the Vaccine Act, petitioners may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs only
if “the petition was brought in good faith, and there was a reasonable basis for which the petition
was brought.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1) (2012). Respondent does not object to Petitioner’s
motion on the basis of good faith or reasonable basis, and I find that the statutory criteria for an
award of fees and costs are met.
B. Justification for an Interim Award
In Avera, the Federal Circuit stated that a special master may award attorneys’ fees and
costs on an interim basis. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). The court noted that such awards “are particularly appropriate in cases where
proceedings are protracted, and costly experts must be retained.” Id. Similarly, the Federal Circuit
held in Shaw that it is proper for a special master to award interim attorneys’ fees “[w]here the
claimant establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists
a good faith basis for the claim[.]” Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 609 F.3d 1372, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2010).
Many cases in the Program are proceeding slower than they have in the past. See Miles v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-254V, 2017 WL 4875816 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct.
4, 2017) (“[i]t may be months to years before an entitlement ruling is issued”); Abbott v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 14-907V, 2016 WL 4151689, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15,
2016) (“The delay in adjudication, to date, is due to a steady increase in the number of petitions
filed each year.”).
This case has been pending for over six years, and an entitlement decision remains
outstanding. Meanwhile, Petitioner’s fees and costs have accumulated in the course of prosecuting
this case. Petitioner has submitted an attorney declaration from Kathleen M. Loucks, Ms. Loucks’
resume, a statement of fees and costs, and a declaration regarding costs. See generally Pet’r’s Exs.
1–4, ECF No. 110-1. Petitioner’s counsel has requested a total of $153,258.12. in fees and
expenses, and “[i]t cannot be seriously argued that in essence loaning cases thousands of dollars
for years is not a hardship.” Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-241V, 2009 WL
775396, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 13, 2009); Fees App. at 1. Because of the protracted
nature of the proceedings, the fact that the ultimate resolution of this case may not occur for a
significant period, and the accumulation of fees and costs, I find an award of interim attorneys’
fees and costs reasonable and appropriate in this case.
III. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 15(e). The
Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court
determines an “initial estimate…by ‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.’” Id. at 1347–48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886,
888 (1984)). Second, the court may make an upward or downward departure from the initial
calculation of the fee award based on specific findings. Id. at 1348.
3

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 4 of 8
It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991) (“[T]he reviewing court must grant
the special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and
costs.”). Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing
records that indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however,
should not include hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d
at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).
Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate
“in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation.” Id. at 895 n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove
that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.
A. Hourly Rate
The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges
for attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1,
2015), mot. for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Office
of Special Masters has since updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate
Fee Schedules from 2015 to 2025 can be accessed online.3
Petitioner requests the following hourly rates for the work of his counsel, Ms. Kathleen M.
Loucks: $358 per hour for work performed in 2018, $360 per hour for work performed in 2019,
$362 per hour for work performed in 2020, $365 per hour for work performed in 2021, $427 per
hour for work performed in 2022, $450 per hour for work performed in 2023, and $475 per hour
for work performed in 2024. Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 4.
Petitioner also requests the following rates for work of his counsel’s paralegals: $135 per
hour for work performed in 2017, $139 per hour for work performed in 2018, $135 per hour for
work performed in 2019, $137 per hour for work performed in 2020, $139 per hour for work
performed in 2021, $153 per hour for work performed in 2022, $161 per hour for work performed
in 2023, $175 per hour for work performed in 2024.4 Id.
The undersigned has reviewed the hourly rates requested by Petitioner for the work of his
counsel throughout the duration of this case. The hourly rates requested for these individuals are
consistent with what they have previously been awarded for Vaccine Program work, and the
undersigned finds them to be reasonable for work performed in the instant case. See, e.g. Delaney
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1620V, 2025 WL 900756, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Feb. 18,
3 The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: https://www.cfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-
rate-fee-schedules
4 It is noted that certain paralegals performed work at rates lower than the amount requested. In 2018, three
paralegals rendered services; however, two billed at a rate of $132 per hour, and one billed at $139 per
hour. Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 4. In 2022, four different paralegals performed work on this case, with two billing at
$140.00 per hour, one at $142.00 per hour, and one at $153.00 per hour. Id. The variances in billing rates
have been reflected in the total amount requested by Petitioner.
4

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 5 of 8
2025); Anderson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-484V, 2024 WL 4010530, at *2 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 5, 2024); Meyer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-484V, 2021 WL
3611797 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 21, 2021).
B. Reasonable Number of Hours
Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation.” Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are
“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley, 461
U.S. at 434). 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. Petitioner
requests a total of $79,485.54 for attorney fees. Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 4.
In the Program, billing for administrative tasks is also not appropriate, no matter who
performs them. See Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989) (stating that services
that are “primarily of a secretarial or clerical nature . . . should be considered as normal overhead
office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates”); see McCulloch, 2015 WL 5634323, at *26
(noting that clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at all, regardless of who performs
them). Clerical and administrative work explicitly includes organizing exhibits, preparing compact
discs, and filing records. Floyd v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-556V, 2017 WL
1344623, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2017); Hoskins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
15-071V, 2017 WL 3379270, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 12, 2017); Kerridge v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-852V, 2017 WL 4020523, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 28,
2017).
Upon review, the undersigned finds that a small reduction is necessary. Counsel and her
paralegals billed for administrative tasks, including the review of court orders and the filing of
documents with the court, on several occasions. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 11, 30, 38, 53 (billing
entry notes for reviewing court scheduling orders); id. at 9 (billing .20 hours for filing notice of
intent to remain in the vaccine program); id. at 12, 28, 33 (billing entry notes for filing status
reports with the court); id. at 16 (billing .90 for filing exhibits, exhibit list, statement of completion,
and status report).
On several occasions, Attorney Kathleen M. Loucks billed for reviewing documents
drafted by her paralegal prior to their filing with the court. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 5, 11, 43;
Drobbin v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-225V, 2022 WL 1515024, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 28, 2022) (noting that “counsel’s supervision of the filing of records is akin to the
clerical act of filing records.”); Van Vessem v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-132V, 2018
WL 3989517, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 3, 2018) (finding that “it is not reasonable for both
an attorney and a paralegal to bill for reviewing each filing in the case”).
Further, Counsel engaged in excessive interoffice communication between her and her
paralegals. Here, there are over 70 billing entries by Counsel and her paralegals documenting
emails or conferences in which they discussed various aspects of the case with one another. See
e.g. Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 2, 4–5, 22, 26, 33, 47; see also Tarsell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
10-251V, 2018 WL 3989452, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2018) (explaining that “[i]ntra-
office communication includes emails and meetings between associates, paralegals, and lead
attorneys.”); Scott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-915V, 2024 WL 4503643, at *5 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 22, 2024) (reducing fees due to excessive entries that billed for “staff to
5

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 6 of 8
discuss the case internally, interoffice meetings, providing case updates, and developing case
strategies.”). Taken as a whole, I find that the amount of interoffice communication is excessive.
See Tarsell, 2018 WL 3989452, at *2 (explaining that “[b]illing for intra-office communication is
unreasonable and excessive.”); Ovenden v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-117V, 2023
WL 3778892, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 2, 2023) (noting that “special masters have
historically reduced attorneys’ fees due to excessive interoffice communication between attorneys
and paralegals.”).
Accordingly, I find that a ten percent reduction of attorneys’ fees is necessary to offset this
issue. For these reasons, I will decrease Petitioner’s requested attorneys’ fees by $7,948.55.
Petitioner is therefore awarded final attorneys’ fees of $71,536.99
C. Costs
Similar to attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (1992). Petitioner has requested
$73,772.58 in total for costs. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 59. Within this request is $69,198.00 for expert fees.
Mot. Att’ys’ Fees & Costs at 5.
Petitioner requests $1,200.00 for Dr. Kelkar’s initial review of this case. Id. at 3. Petitioner
did not provide an expert report from Dr. Kelkar because he declined to provide one. Id. Petitioner
submitted an invoice, which showed that Dr. Kelkar performed three hours of work at a rate of
$400.00 per hour, amounting to a total of $1,200.00. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 111. Dr. Kelkar has previously
been awarded $400.00 per hour for his vaccine program work. See e.g. Choiniere v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 16-1286V, 2019 WL 518519, at *3 (Fed Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 11, 2019) (finding
rate of “[$400]/hour for Dr. Kelkar to be reasonable.”); Meyer, 2021 WL 3611797, at *3. I find
this rate to be reasonable.
Petitioner also seeks reimbursement for expert costs incurred in connection with the
submission of expert reports in this case. Specifically, Petitioner requests $22,625.00 for Dr.
Gershwin’s expert fees, at a rate of $500.00 per hour. Mot. Att’ys’ Fees & Costs at 3. Dr.
Gershwin’s rate of $500 per hour has been found reasonable and previously awarded in the
Vaccine Program. See e.g., Zambelli v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-551V, 2024 WL
1406314, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 6, 2024); Gravens v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-416V, 2023 WL 5666167, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2023); Le v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 16-1078V, 2023 WL 2054467, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 17, 2023);
Massey v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-541V, 2020 WL 1685567, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 12, 2020).
Petitioner requests $26,810.50 in costs related to Dr. Willer’s expert fees. Mot. Att’ys’ Fees
& Costs at 4. Dr. Willer charged $550.00 per hour for his work in this case. Id. I have reviewed
Dr. Willer’s expert reports in this matter and find that his rate of $550.00 is reasonable and
consistent with prior awards for work he performed. See e.g. Grujic v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 20-820V, 2024 WL 4263422, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 21, 2024); Mandril v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-305V, 2024 WL 506280, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
9, 2024); Pahos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1455V, 2023 WL 6620336, at *5 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 5, 2023) (increasing Dr. Willer’s rate to $550.00).
6

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 7 of 8
Finally, Petitioner requests $18,562.50 in costs related to Dr. Mark’s psychiatric expert
reports. Mot. Att’ys’ Fees & Costs at 5. Here, Dr. Marks charged an initial retainer of $1,800.00
prior to commencing work. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 121. She charged $450 per hour in 2021 for record
review, forensic consultation, forensic interview, and report preparation that equaled 26.25 hours
and amounted to $11,812.50, but the balance was reduced to $10,012.50 once the retainer fee was
applied. Id. at 123. She then charged $450 for record review and report preparation in 2023, which
amounted to 15 hours and totaled $6,750.00. Id. at 138. In total, Dr. Marks performed 41.25 hours
of work billed at $450 per hour.
Unlike the reports from Drs. Gershwin and Willer, Petitioner’s “use of a psychiatrist as an
expert in the Vaccine Program is quite rare, with little evidence as to what a reasonable rate might
be.” Langley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-837V, 2023 WL 7221461, at *3 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 7, 2023). In support of the requested hourly rate, Petitioner asserts that Dr. Marks
has been “evaluat[ing] and treati[ng] hundreds of individuals with mood and psychotic disorders”
since 2001. Mot. Att’ys’ Fees & Costs at 4. Petitioner further avers that Dr. Marks is “board-
certified in general psychiatry, with added qualifications in forensic psychiatry[,]” and has testified
as a forensic expert in medical-legal matters on seventeen occasions in the past five years. Id. at
4–5. Petitioner further stated that her opinion is “critical in refuting Respondent’s alternate cause
argument and directly refuting the allegations made by Respondent’s expert psychiatrist, Dr.
Larusso.” Id. at 4.
As noted by Petitioner, Dr. Marks’ hourly rate has previously been set at $350 for work
performed in 2021. See Langley, 2023 WL 7221461, at *3. However, in that case, the petitioner
did not offer evidence “to suggest that Dr. Marks’ requested hourly rates [were] reasonable for a
psychiatrist or for the work performed[.]” Id. Although I believe that Petitioner has offered some
evidence to suggest that her rates are reasonable for a psychiatrist in this case, I find that a slight
adjustment is warranted.
Accordingly, I will award a rate of $425 per hour, which has been previously awarded for
Dr. Marks’ work in the Vaccine Program. Cowart v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-513V,
2022 WL 4954728, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 8, 2022) (awarding Dr. Marks $425 per hour
for 6 hours of work reviewing records for forensic consultations); Moody v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 16-513V, 2018 WL 7286513, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 2018).
Therefore, a reasonable award for Dr. Marks’ work is $17,531.25.
The additional incurred costs are from postage, photocopying, and medical record charges.
See Pet’r’s Ex. 3. Therefore, I find that the requested costs are reasonable and should be awarded
in full.
7

Case 1:18-vv-00995-UNJ Document 122 Filed 05/20/25 Page 8 of 8
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e) (2012), I award Petitioner
$105,454.46 in interim attorneys’ fees, plus $18,887.90 in interim costs as follows:
Interim Attorneys’ Fees Requested $79,485.54
(Reduction) -$7,948.55
Interim Attorneys’ Fees Awarded $71,536.99
Interim Costs Requested $73,772.58
(Reduction) -$1,031.25
Interim Costs Awarded $72,741.33
Total Amount Awarded $144,278.32
Accordingly, I will award the total of $144,278.32 to be issued in the form of a check
payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Kathleen M. Loucks, of Lommen Abdo
Law Firm, for interim attorneys’ fees and costs.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the above decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D.S. Young
Herbrina D.S. Young
Special Master
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice renouncing the
right to seek review.
8