Moon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
21-0632V
Fed. Cl.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Bobbi Moon filed a Vaccine Act petition claiming a shoulder injury (SIRVA) after a flu shot received on October 21, 2019.
- The injury allegedly persisted for more than six months, a requirement under the Vaccine Act for compensation.
- The Special Master previously dismissed the case due to lack of preponderant evidence showing the injury lasted the required duration.
- After dismissal, Moon sought $12,442.58 in attorneys’ fees and costs, invoking the Act’s fee-shifting provisions, even for unsuccessful cases.
- The medical records showed Moon completed physical therapy with full recovery three months post-vaccination, and subsequent records did not substantiate ongoing shoulder injury.
- The Special Master addressed whether there was a reasonable basis for the claim, a statutory prerequisite for fee awards in unsuccessful Vaccine Act claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs in an unsuccessful Vaccine Act claim | Moon sought fees arguing participation in good faith and implied reasonable basis | Government deferred to Special Master's discretion | No reasonable basis established; fees denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting injury lasting more than six months | Claimed injury persisted based on own statements, former spouse, and later PCP notes | Contended contemporaneous medical records show resolution of injury within three months | Medical records prevail; insufficient evidence of prolonged injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reasonable basis must be objectively supported and can dissipate with the lack of supporting evidence)
- Black v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546 (Fed. Cl. 1995) (petitioners must meet a jurisdictional threshold by demonstrating injury lasting over six months)
- Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 627 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (the Vaccine Act provides a liberal fee-shifting scheme, even for unsuccessful claims)
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S.Ct. 1886 (2013) (attorney’s fees may be awarded even when the petition was untimely, reflecting Congress’s intent to provide adequate counsel)
- Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (good faith is required for fee eligibility; focuses on petitioner’s honest belief in claim validity)