Farrell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-1374
| Fed. Cl. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Petitioner Alexis Farrell filed a Vaccine Program petition alleging POTS caused by a flu vaccine administered on November 6, 2013; petition filed October 20, 2016.
- Petition included limited records at filing; counsel stated the filing was made with the statute-of-limitations in mind and that additional records were being obtained.
- The court held an initial status conference and identified two defects: no medical records from the immediate post-vaccination period (Nov 2013–Jun 2014) and documentation suggesting pre‑existing symptoms predating the vaccination.
- Petitioner later confirmed no additional records existed and moved for voluntary dismissal; the special master dismissed the petition for insufficient proof on May 16, 2017.
- Petitioner sought $7,541.20 in attorneys’ fees and $558.56 in costs; respondent argued the petition lacked reasonable basis and fees should be denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner had a "reasonable basis" to warrant an award of fees and costs | Farrell contends she filed in good faith and had a reasonable basis, also relying on access-to-counsel principles | Secretary argues the petition lacked reasonable factual/medical support and was filed mainly to preserve the statute of limitations, which alone does not create reasonable basis | Denied — special master found no reasonable basis under the totality of the circumstances and refused fees/costs |
| Role of impending statute of limitations in assessing reasonable basis | Filing to preserve limitations can justify expedited filing and a more lenient pre‑filing investigation | Filing solely to preserve limitations without adequate pre‑filing investigation does not establish reasonable basis | Court: statute‑of‑limitations pressure is a factor but does not automatically confer reasonable basis; here counsel had time and could have investigated more prior to filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (reasonable‑basis inquiry considers totality of the circumstances)
- Silva v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 108 Fed. Cl. 401 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (Section 15(e)(1)(B) grants special masters broad discretion on fee awards)
- McKellar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (reasonable‑basis is an objective totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test)
- Rehn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 126 Fed. Cl. 86 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (counsel must actively investigate before filing; failure may negate reasonable basis)