D. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
19-0871V
Fed. Cl.May 7, 2024Background
- Petitioner, H.D., filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act alleging that various conditions (including POTS and chronic fatigue syndrome) were caused or aggravated by HPV, Hepatitis A, or meningococcal B vaccination in June 2016.
- Petitioner was a minor at the time of vaccination and had a history of mononucleosis shortly before receiving the vaccines, with persistent symptoms following vaccination.
- Petitioner’s case remained largely in medical records collection for several years before she moved to voluntarily dismiss her petition to pursue a civil action.
- Petitioner sought $105,914.73 in attorneys’ fees and costs after dismissal, but the Secretary of Health and Human Services opposed, arguing lack of reasonable basis for the claim and contesting the amount as excessive.
- The Special Master reduced the requested fees, finding both that there was a reasonable basis for filing but also that billing was excessive and required reductions for inefficiency, vague billing, and premature termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable Basis for Petition | Sufficient objective evidence and medical literature (e.g., POTS, chronic fatigue were diagnosed; literature linked symptoms to vaccination) | Plaintiff's diagnoses were unsupported; no sufficient objective evidence or timely medical opinion on causation | Reasonable basis was found; fees awardable |
| Use of Later-Obtained Evidence | Later records and opinions (even post-petition) are relevant to reasonableness | Later expert opinions/studies cannot support basis if not available at filing | Not dispositive—later evidence may still count |
| Amount of Attorneys’ Fees | Full amount justified given work performed and complexity | Billing was excessive, included non-compensable/unnecessary work | Significant reductions applied for excess/unnecessary work |
| Excessive Billing for Reply Brief | Large fee claimed for reply brief was justified | Reply brief billing was excessive | Reduced to 12 hours total (attorney + paralegal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (clarifies attorneys’ fees standards under the Vaccine Act, including that fees may be awarded even for unsuccessful claims if brought in good faith and with reasonable basis)
- Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (distinguishes subjective good faith from objective reasonable basis under the Vaccine Act)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (establishes lodestar method for attorneys’ fees determination)
- Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (special master’s discretion to reduce hours to reasonable level in fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (attorneys not entitled to compensation for unnecessary work)