Radhakrishnan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-1179
| Fed. Cl. | May 16, 2017Background
- Petitioner Mary Radhakrishnan filed a Vaccine Act claim alleging left-shoulder injury from an influenza vaccination administered on October 15, 2012; petition filed October 13, 2015 (near the 36-month statute of limitations).
- Initial records filed were limited; additional prior medical records were obtained only after filing and undermined the immediacy and causation alleged.
- Petitioner chose not to offer expert testimony and moved for a decision on the written record; the Special Master dismissed the claim for insufficient proof on May 24, 2016.
- Petitioner then sought attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $5,734.33; Respondent did not oppose the overall amount.
- The Special Master found petitioner acted in good faith and that a reasonable basis existed (including leniency due to filing on the eve of the statute of limitations), and approved the requested fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner acted in good faith | Counsel filed honestly believing a compensable claim existed | Respondent did not dispute good faith | Good faith presumed and satisfied |
| Whether petitioner had an objective reasonable basis to bring the claim | Timely filing near statute cutoff and limited pre-filing records supported filing | Records later obtained undermined claim but Respondent did not challenge fees overall | Reasonable basis found to exist at filing and continued through case (statute-of-limitations context affords greater latitude) |
| Whether claimed hours and hourly rates were reasonable | Requested forum rates ($300 in 2015; $359 in 2016) and paralegal rates supported by affidavits and prior decisions | Respondent expressly did not object to the overall amount | Rates and hours were reasonable; no reductions made (adopted reasoning from Dezern decision) |
| Whether fees and costs should be awarded despite unsuccessful petition | Entitled if good faith and reasonable basis satisfied | General statute permits fee-shifting only when standards met | Award of $5,734.33 granted jointly to petitioner and counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (confirms fee awards may be available even for untimely petitions under certain circumstances)
- Perriera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (unsuccessful petitioners must show good faith and reasonable basis for fee awards)
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (lodestar approach and forum-rate rule for Vaccine Program attorneys)
- Saxton ex rel. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Vaccine Program fee expectations and reasonableness standard)
- Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 627 (2012) (discusses the Program’s liberal fee-shifting scheme)
- Chuisano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (2014) (reasonable-basis is objective and assessed under totality of circumstances)