Allicock ex rel. M.A. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
128 Fed. Cl. 724
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Rosa Allicock filed a Vaccine Act petition in May 2015 one day before the 3‑year statute of limitations expired, alleging vaccinations in 2012 aggravated her son M.A.’s developmental delay.
- Petitioner submitted partial medical records shortly after filing; additional records arrived slowly over months.
- The Special Master questioned the petition’s reasonable basis; Petitioner moved to dismiss and the Special Master dismissed the case for insufficient proof.
- Petitioner then sought attorneys’ fees and costs (~$20,000 total); Respondent opposed any award, arguing the petition lacked a reasonable basis.
- The Special Master awarded most requested fees, finding the claim had at least a minimal reasonable basis due to the petitioner’s reports and a treating record referencing “encephalopathy,” and because filing was necessary to preserve the statute of limitations.
- The Court reviewed the Special Master’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unsuccessful vaccine petitioner may recover attorneys’ fees when the petition lacked sufficient proof | Allicock: Filing to preserve the statute of limitations was justified; initial facts (post‑vaccine worsening and treating physician’s statement) gave reasonable basis; counsel investigated and dismissed when records showed insufficiency | HHS: Petition lacked objective reasonable basis; counsel should have conducted more diligence before filing and fees should be denied to deter frivolous filings | The Special Master’s discretionary finding that the petition had a minimal reasonable basis was not an abuse of discretion; fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Saxton v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (fee awards to unsuccessful petitioners reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (burden on petitioner to demonstrate reasonable basis for claim)
- McKellar v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (petitioner must affirmatively demonstrate reasonable basis)
- Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (reasonable‑basis is objective, determined by the totality of the circumstances; balance fees policy concerns)
- Cloer v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., 676 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Congress recognized that fee burdens can deter vaccine claimants)