Bodak v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
19-2019
Fed. Cl.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Troy J. Bodak filed a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging a shoulder injury (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on October 31, 2018.
- The claim was dismissed on the merits; Bodak could not provide evidence to meet the standard for compensation.
- Despite the unsuccessful claim, Bodak’s counsel sought attorney’s fees and costs, arguing the claim was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis.
- The respondent (the Secretary of Health and Human Services) did not oppose awarding fees and costs but left the amount and method of payment to the court’s discretion.
- The Special Master found the claim had a reasonable basis based on some medical records and dismissed the disputes over payment form as moot due to electronic disbursement.
- The court found the fee request reasonable and awarded the full amount sought to petitioner’s counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs despite losing the case | Claim had reasonable basis and good faith | Did not oppose entitlement, left to court’s discretion | Fees and costs awarded due to reasonable basis and good faith |
| Appropriate amount of fees/costs to be awarded | Full amount requested is reasonable | No specific objection to amount or rates requested | Full requested fees/costs ($43,792.03) awarded |
| Payment method for fees/costs | Should be paid directly to counsel (IOLTA) | Preferred joint payment (petitioner and counsel) | Issue moot (payment to IOLTA approved due to electronic process) |
| Consideration of good faith and reasonable basis | Both satisfied | Did not contest, did not brief | Court found both requirements satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (establishes that reasonable basis is required for an attorney’s fee award in unsuccessful cases)
- Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (discusses the distinction between subjective good faith and objective reasonable basis)
- Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 971 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (clarifies objective evidence is required for reasonable basis)