Simmons v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
875 F.3d 632
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Simmons alleged Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) from an October 26, 2010 flu vaccine and retained counsel in August 2011.
- Counsel lost contact with Simmons; they terminated the representation in March 2013 (letter returned undeliverable).
- Simmons reappeared in mid-October 2013, and counsel filed a Vaccine Act petition on October 22, 2013 without medical records or supporting evidence.
- The special master ordered records; counsel again could not obtain them due to lost contact, and the special master dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute.
- Counsel sought attorneys’ fees; the special master awarded fees, finding the petition filed in good faith and that an impending statute-of-limitations deadline made filing reasonable.
- The Claims Court reversed, holding counsel had no reasonable basis for the merits and that the looming limitations deadline did not excuse the lack of factual support; the Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel had a "reasonable basis" for the merits of Simmons’s Vaccine Act claim | Filing was justified by client’s vaccination receipt, counsel’s assessment, and imminent statute-of-limitations | No factual record supported GBS causation; impending deadline cannot create an objective reasonable basis | No reasonable basis for the merits; award vacated |
| Whether looming statute-of-limitations can substitute for objective reasonable basis | Looming deadline justified filing to avoid ethical breach and preserve tolled claim | Deadline may explain counsel’s conduct (good faith) but cannot supply objective merit for the claim | Deadline may bear on good faith but not on reasonable-basis inquiry |
| Whether special master conflated good faith and reasonable basis | Special master permissibly considered counsel’s conduct and deadline as part of reasonableness | Special master improperly folded subjective good-faith factors into the objective reasonable-basis test | Special master abused discretion by misapplying law; conflation condemned |
| Standard of review for special master’s fee decision | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Review for abuse of discretion; misapplication of legal standard reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Chuisano v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (distinguishing subjective good faith from objective reasonable basis)
- Rodriguez v. Secretary of HHS, 632 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard of review for special master decisions)
- Avera v. Secretary of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (same review standard principles cited)
- Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (criteria for abuse of discretion)
- Markovich v. Secretary of HHS, 477 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (de novo review when wrong legal standard applied)
- Cloer v. Secretary of HHS, 654 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (statute of limitations under Vaccine Act not jurisdictional; equitable tolling possible)
- Cloer v. Secretary of HHS, 675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded where untimeliness is nonfrivolous; limitations issues can be part of reasonable-basis analysis)