Santacroce v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-555
| Fed. Cl. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Petitioner Sabrina Santacroce filed a Vaccine Act petition on behalf of her son J.R., alleging dystonia caused or aggravated by vaccinations given on March 8, 2013 and August 14, 2013.
- Medical records show reports of abnormal movements beginning in 2012 and continuing through 2013; Dr. Vyas diagnosed dystonia on August 30, 2013 and reaffirmed it in March 2014, and a VAERS report was filed by his office.
- Extensive neurology testing (EEGs, MRI, EMG) was largely normal, and several treating clinicians suggested behavioral causes for the movements.
- Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the petition on December 1, 2016 after failing to secure an expert report; she then sought $34,618.68 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Special Master Millman found petitioner filed in good faith but denied fees, concluding there was no objective reasonable basis for the 2013-based claim (discounting the VAERS report and emphasizing earlier 2012 symptoms and normal neurologic testing).
- The Court of Federal Claims vacated the Special Master’s decision and remanded, holding the Special Master applied an overly stringent standard and should have evaluated whether the materials submitted supported a feasible claim under the objective reasonable-basis test.
Issues
| Issue | Santacroce (Plaintiff) | Secretary (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Special Master applied the correct objective "reasonable basis" standard in denying fees | Argued Special Master applied an elevated entitlement standard and should have found reasonable basis based on affidavit, medical records, and VAERS | Argued Special Master properly assessed the record and concluded objective support for the 2013 claim was lacking | Court: Special Master applied too burdensome a standard; remand to reassess under correct objective reasonable-basis inquiry |
| Whether VAERS and petitioner’s affidavit/records suffice to establish reasonable basis | Contended VAERS + sworn statement + contemporaneous records can establish reasonable basis for filing | Argued VAERS is insufficient alone and could be unreliable here (mother-urged filing); other records undermine causation | Court: VAERS with vaccination evidence and medical records can be sufficient at the reasonable-basis stage; Special Master erred by discounting it outright |
| Whether focusing on earlier (2012) symptoms was proper to deny fees for a 2013-based claim | Argued Special Master improperly weighed evidence by emphasizing 2012 events and assuming claim should have been brought earlier | Argued earlier symptoms supported concern that 2013 claim lacked objective support | Court: Special Master improperly weighed evidence about 2012 events instead of assessing feasibility of the alleged 2013 claim based on submitted materials |
| Whether good faith was disputed | Good faith conceded; emphasized objective basis issue | Not disputed | Court: Good faith was not disputed; only reasonable-basis inquiry required |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 875 F.3d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reasonable-basis for fees is an objective inquiry)
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (U.S. 2013) (statutory framework for fees under Vaccine Act)
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Special Master legal conclusions)
- Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (2014) (good faith and reasonable basis are distinct; reasonable basis is objective)
- Woods v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 105 Fed. Cl. 148 (2012) (petitioner must furnish some evidence to establish reasonable basis)
- McKellar v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (2011) (discussion of reasonable-basis evidentiary threshold)
- Manville v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 63 Fed. Cl. 482 (2004) (VAERS alone insufficient to establish causation on the merits)