Rehn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
126 Fed. Cl. 86
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Garry Rehn alleged he developed multiple conditions after a 10/26/2011 influenza vaccination and filed a Vaccine Act petition on 10/20/2014; counsel Randall Knutson submitted voluminous medical records soon after filing.
- Rehn’s medical history was complex (respiratory events, hospitalizations, pancreatitis workups, later specialty evaluations) and onset timing and causation were unclear.
- Knutson pursued the claim, sought treating-physician and expert opinions, but on 2/20/2015 received a treating PA’s letter declining to link the vaccine to Rehn’s ailments; Knutson continued to investigate.
- Petitioner replaced Knutson with new counsel (Phyllis Widman) on 6/2/2015; the case proceeded slowly with ongoing specialty work and no final diagnosis.
- Knutson moved for interim attorneys’ fees and costs (seeking $14,152.65) on 9/16/2015; the special master granted the motion on 12/1/2015 finding good faith, reasonable basis, and that withholding interim payment would constitute undue hardship given protracted, uncertain resolution.
- The government sought review; the Court of Federal Claims affirmed the special master, denying the government’s motion for review.
Issues
| Issue | Rehn (Plaintiff) Argument | HHS (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was brought in good faith | Rehn had subjective belief and counsel reasonably relied on client statements and records | Government did not contest good faith | Court affirmed special master: good faith presumed and unrebutted |
| Whether the claim had a reasonable basis | Counsel submitted voluminous, complex medical records and actively investigated causation; reasonable basis existed to file and pursue | No expert opinion at filing; later treating clinicians declined to link vaccine, so reasonable basis dissipated | Court affirmed special master: considering totality (records, investigation, complexity), reasonable basis existed and persisted while counsel sought experts |
| Whether special master abused discretion in awarding interim fees | Interim award necessary to avoid undue hardship to withdrawn counsel given protracted, costly litigation and uncertain timeline | Interim award inappropriate: focus should be on client hardship and counsel can await payment like typical PI practice | Court held no abuse of discretion: special master permissibly considered counsel’s hardship and Avera factors and reasonably exercised discretion to award interim fees |
| Whether special master misapplied legal standards for interim awards | Counsel met statutory three-step framework (good faith, reasonable basis, discretionary award) and Avera factors for interim relief | Argued special master’s comments on pre-filing investigation were too lenient and government emphasized need for objective medical support before filing | Court found some commentary too broad but upheld outcome as supported by facts; no clear error or legal error in application |
Key Cases Cited
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (permits interim fee awards and lists factors bearing on discretion).
- Shaw v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 609 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Court of Federal Claims may review interim fee decisions).
- Cloer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (three-step framework: good faith, reasonable basis, then discretionary award).
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (U.S. 2013) (clarifies statute bars attorneys from charging clients; fees payable from Vaccine Trust Fund).
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2011) (context on Vaccine Act’s purpose and no-fault compensation scheme).
- Woods v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 105 Fed. Cl. 148 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (affirming interim fee award; delay and hardship relevant to discretion).