Sebelius v. Cloer
133 S. Ct. 1886
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- NCVIA creates no-fault vaccine injury program; petitions for compensation filed with Court of Federal Claims and forwarded to special masters.
- Attorney fees may be awarded for unsuccessful petitions if brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis; 36-month limitations govern timely filing.
- Cloer experienced MS symptoms starting 1997 after Hepatitis-B vaccines and filed NCVIA petition in 2005.
- Chief Special Master initially held petition untimely under §300aa–16(a)(2); en banc FC reversed, allowing fees despite untimeliness.
- En Banc FC held untimely petitions may qualify for fees if filed in good faith with a reasonable basis; Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirm.
- Court’s decision rests on ordinary meaning of “filed,” statutory coherence, and policy goals of the fees provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an untimely NCVIA petition be eligible for attorney’s fees? | Cloer argues untimely but filed in good faith with reasonable basis. | Government argues fees barred for untimely petitions. | Yes; untimely petitions may qualify for fees if filed in good faith with a reasonable basis. |
| Is the term “filed” in §300aa–11/§300aa–15(e) to be read in ordinary meaning without requiring timing to nullify filing? | Cloer’s filing remains a filing even if untimely. | Government contends untimeliness voids filing. | Ordinary meaning governs; untimely petitions remain “filed” and eligible for fees when good faith and reasonable basis exist. |
| Does the 36-month limit prevent fee eligibility or merely bar remedies? | Limitations do not negate filing for fee purposes. | Limitations bar compensation but not filing for fees. | Limitations bar compensation, but do not preclude fee awards for timely or untimely petitions meeting other criteria. |
| Are policy/rules about avoiding “shadow trials” controlling, or does statutory text control? | Allowing fees in untimely cases could require shadow trials. | Plain text allows shadow trials where petition was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis. | Statutory text controls; fees may be awarded even if shadow trials are contemplated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) (definition of ‘filed’ for filing purposes)
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (textual unambiguity and coherence govern statutory interpretation)
- Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (canons of construction give way to unambiguous text)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. _ (2011) (NCVIA no-fault scheme and fee provisions)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229 (2010) (policy arguments yield to unambiguous text)