Chuisano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
116 Fed. Cl. 276
| Fed. Cl. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Debra Chuisano filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging her mother died from a flu vaccine; medical records showed pneumonia, sepsis, chronic pulmonary disease, and death months after vaccination.
- CHC-C (initial counsel) accepted the case, filed a skeletal petition on June 28, 2007 (near the limitations deadline), then struggled to collect records and secure an expert.
- CHC-C sought to withdraw; Robert Moxley substituted as counsel in November 2009 and continued efforts to locate an expert; no expert provided a supportive causation opinion.
- The special master denied compensation (May 18, 2011) because petitioner offered only temporal proximity and her affidavit with no medical opinion or records establishing causation-in-fact.
- On fee petition review, the special master initially awarded reduced fees to CHC-C but denied successor counsel’s fees; after reconsideration he withdrew the award and denied all fees, finding no "reasonable basis" due to lack of evidentiary support and delayed diligence.
- The Court of Federal Claims sustained the special master: it reaffirmed that reasonable basis is an objective, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry; here absence of any evidence linking the vaccine to death and counsel’s delayed efforts justified denial of fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition ever had a "reasonable basis" for awarding fees under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1) | Chuisano: reasonable basis is satisfied initially (esp. when filed near the SOL) and is a one-time inquiry tied to counsel's professional judgment and good faith | Gov't: reasonable basis requires objective evidentiary support for the claim; temporal proximity alone is insufficient; SOL pressure does not excuse lack of evidence | Held: Reasonable basis is objective and considers totality of circumstances; here lack of any medical evidence/opinion linking vaccine to death meant no reasonable basis, so fees denied |
| Whether a reasonable-basis finding is a one-time inquiry that cannot be revisited | Chuisano: once established at filing it cannot be lost later; reliance on analogy to EAJA one-time threshold | Gov't: reasonable basis can be reevaluated if circumstances materially change or supporting basis disappears | Held: Not one-time; special master may revisit reasonable basis if new facts or lack of evidence emerge (e.g., failed expert development) |
| Whether filing on the eve of the statute of limitations automatically establishes reasonable basis | Chuisano: late filing justified given SOL risk; counsel’s decision-making supports reasonable basis | Gov't: looming SOL does not absolve obligation to have some evidentiary support for claim when seeking fees | Held: SOL pressure is a relevant factor but does not automatically establish reasonable basis; here it did not compensate for evidentiary gap |
| Whether the special master abused discretion in denying fees to both CHC-C and successor counsel | Chuisano: counsel performed substantial work and acted in good faith; fee denial was excessive | Gov't: special master properly exercised discretion given lack of causation evidence and counsel’s delayed diligence | Held: No abuse of discretion; special master considered relevant evidence, drew plausible inferences, and provided rational basis for denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (clarifying good-faith and reasonable-basis standards under Vaccine Act)
- Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (discussing fee eligibility for untimely petitions and reasonable-basis issues)
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standards of review and deference to special masters on discretionary matters)
- Munn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (standards of review for findings of fact, law, and discretion)
- Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special master discretion over fee awards)
- McKellar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (2011) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to reasonable basis)
- Silva v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 108 Fed. Cl. 401 (2012) (affirming fee denial where counsel performed minimal investigation and no causation evidence existed)
- Jean v. Nelson, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (EAJA “one-time threshold” discussion; court rejects analogy to Vaccine Act)
- Cedillo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 617 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (necessity of medical opinion beyond temporal proximity in Vaccine Act causation proofs)