Carter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 132 Fed. Cl. 372

Infant Z.J.C. received DTaP and pneumococcal vaccines on July 1, 2014, and died July 4, 2014; death attributed by medical records to acute bronchopneumonia/anoxia.
Petitioner (mother) filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging the vaccines caused the fatal respiratory infection; case was voluntarily dismissed for lack of an expert report after petitioner failed to secure an expert.
After dismissal, petitioner sought $21,014.36 in attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1); respondent opposed.
Special master denied fees, finding the petition lacked an objective "reasonable basis"—medical records did not link vaccines to death, no expert opinion supported causation, no statute-of-limitations urgency, and counsel lacked diligence.
Court reviewed the special master’s decision and sustained it, concluding the reasonable-basis standard was correctly applied and, even if the special master misstated that an expert was required pre-filing, any error was harmless given the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner is entitled to fees under § 300aa‑15(e) because petition had a "reasonable basis"	Carter argued the petition had a reasonable basis based on temporal proximity and analogous prior cases, so fees should be awarded despite dismissal	Gov't argued the petition lacked objective evidentiary support (no treating or retained expert linking vaccines to death), so no reasonable basis and no fee award	Court held petition lacked reasonable basis; special master did not abuse discretion and fee denial was sustained
Whether an expert report was required before filing to show reasonable basis	Carter argued the Act does not mandate pre‑filing expert reports and that requiring one is error	Gov't maintained substantial evidence was needed to show reasonable basis and that counsel should have secured an expert given records	Court agreed the Act does not strictly require a pre‑filing expert, but any claim that the special master imposed such a requirement was harmless error given lack of supporting evidence

Andreu ex rel. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for special master legal and factual findings)
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 618 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to special master factual findings)
Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 601 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard for credibility/evidentiary findings)
Chuisano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (Fed. Cl.) (discussing reasonable‑basis standard and evidentiary requirements)
Perriera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (expert report alone does not automatically satisfy reasonable basis)