Domke v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-307

Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging an immediate (within 45 minutes) anaphylactic reaction and brachial neuritis from Tdap on March 13, 2013, and alternatively alleged immune-mediated arm/shoulder symptoms.
Medical records (allergy testing, two EMGs, and neurologic exam) showed negative allergy testing to Tdap and normal EMG/neurologic findings; no treating physician diagnosed anaphylaxis or brachial neuritis.
Petitioner retained counsel on February 18, 2015; counsel delayed requesting medical records until August 2015 and performed limited record review before filing the petition on March 9, 2016.
Respondent recommended against compensation in a Rule 4(c) report; petitioner’s retained immunology experts could not provide causation reports.
Petitioner orally moved to dismiss at a status conference after failing to obtain expert support; the Special Master dismissed the petition for failure to prove a Table injury or causation-in-fact.
Petitioner sought attorneys’ fees ($21,556.90) and costs ($4,348.19); respondent conceded statutory eligibility but left the amount to the Special Master. The Special Master denied fees and costs for lack of reasonable basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition had "good faith" and "reasonable basis" to permit an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1)	Petitioner asserted she honestly believed she suffered vaccine-caused anaphylaxis/brachial neuritis and thus sought fees after dismissal.	Respondent did not contest petitioner’s good faith and agreed statutory requirements for eligibility were met, deferring reasonableness to the Special Master.	Good faith presumed and not contested; however, petition lacked reasonable basis, so fees and costs denied.
Whether counsel performed adequate pre-filing investigation (due diligence) to establish reasonable basis	Implicitly: counsel’s actions supported filing within limitations; petitioner relied on counsel to pursue the claim.	Counsel delayed records collection and failed to identify absence of medical support (no diagnoses, negative testing), undermining objective feasibility.	Counsel’s delayed and inadequate investigation showed lack of reasonable basis; quicker/earlier review would have revealed no medical support.

Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (statutory standard allowing fees only where petition brought in good faith and with reasonable basis)
McKellar v. Sec’y of HHS, 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (reasonable-basis is an objective, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (affirms discretion to deny fees where reasonable basis/diligence lacking)
Rehn v. Sec’y of HHS, 126 Fed. Cl. 86 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (attorney must actively investigate before filing; lack of investigation may defeat reasonable basis)
Grice v. Sec’y of HHS, 36 Fed. Cl. 114 (Fed. Cl. 1996) (petitioners entitled to presumption of good faith)