James-Cornelius v. Hhs, 984 F.3d 1374

Appellant Stacey James‑Cornelius filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging her son E.J. developed dysautonomia/POTS and related symptoms after three Gardasil vaccinations, with symptoms worsening after subsequent doses (alleged rechallenge).
Medical records in the petition documented headaches, vomiting, syncope, a working diagnosis of POTS, a later diagnosis of dysautonomia, and a physician note “??VAERS”; petitioner also submitted three medical-article hypotheses and the Gardasil package insert noting similar side effects.
Petitioner and counsel were unable to obtain additional urgent‑care records; petitioner voluntarily moved to dismiss, acknowledging she likely could not prove entitlement.
After dismissal, petitioner sought $17,111.12 in attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑15(e); the Special Master denied fees for lack of a "reasonable basis," concluding no objective evidence of causation and criticizing counsel’s prefiling conduct.
The Court of Federal Claims affirmed; James‑Cornelius appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit held the Special Master erred by failing to consider relevant objective evidence (medical records, affidavits, package insert, and physician note) and by relying on counsel’s conduct; it vacated the denial of fees and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an express medical causation opinion is required to show reasonable basis for fees	No; reasonable basis can be shown by objective medical records and other evidence without an expert opinion	Absence of an express medical opinion shows lack of reasonable basis	Court: Lack of an express opinion is not dispositive; records and other objective evidence can establish reasonable basis
Whether petitioner and son affidavits are objective evidence for reasonable‑basis analysis	Affidavits stating vaccination dates, timing, and worsening symptoms are admissible objective facts and can support causation	Affidavits are mere subjective belief and cannot constitute objective evidence of causation	Court: Affidavits about facts within witness knowledge can be objective evidence and must be considered
Whether counsel’s prefiling efforts to obtain records can defeat reasonable basis	Counsel’s efforts to obtain more records are subjective and irrelevant to the objective reasonable‑basis inquiry	Those efforts show counsel knew the claim was weak and thus no reasonable basis existed	Court: Reliance on counsel’s conduct was error; reasonable basis is objective and not negated by counsel’s investigative diligence

Cottingham on Behalf of K.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 971 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (clarifies "reasonable basis" is an objective test and medical records can supply sufficient objective evidence)
Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reasonable‑basis inquiry is limited to objective evidence; petitioner’s subjective beliefs and counsel’s state of mind are irrelevant)
Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (statutory framework for awarding attorneys’ fees under the Vaccine Act)
Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (recognizes rechallenge as probative evidence of causation)