Stokes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 14-433

Michelle Stokes received two doses of the HPV vaccine in April and June 2011 and subsequently developed persistent cervical lymphadenopathy diagnosed over 2011–2013, with eventual pathology showing Rosai–Dorfman disease.
Treating physicians pursued imaging, biopsies, infectious disease and rheumatology workups; doctors differed on diagnoses (IgG4-related disease considered then disputed) and no treating physician definitively opined that the vaccine caused her lymphadenopathy.
Stokes filed a Vaccine Act petition in May 2014 alleging vaccine-caused lymphadenopathy; her counsel (William Cochran) filed the petition and later sought interim attorneys’ fees and costs while attempting to obtain a retained expert (Dr. Gershwin reviewed materials but produced no report).
The Secretary opposed fees principally arguing the claim lacked a "reasonable basis"; the case was later dismissed after Stokes proceeded pro se, failed to retain an expert, and did not respond to orders.
The special master considered whether the petition had the evidentiary support necessary to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s discretionary fee provision for unsuccessful petitioners (good faith + reasonable basis), focusing on reasonable basis as dispositive.
The special master denied the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding the petition lacked reasonable basis because it relied on temporal association without treating- or retained-expert support and counsel had not performed sufficient pre-filing diligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unsuccessful Vaccine Act petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑15(e)(1) based on reasonable basis	Stokes (via counsel) asserted a totality‑of‑circumstances showing (timing, medical records, and literature) established reasonable basis for vaccine causation	Secretary argued an evidentiary‑based test is required; mere timing and the cited literature are insufficient without treating or retained expert support	Denied: no reasonable basis — timing alone and the submitted literature were inadequate and no expert report supported causation
Whether counsel’s pre‑filing conduct and delay in consulting an expert affect reasonable‑basis analysis	Counsel relied on totality (including counsel actions) and argued circumstances supported filing	Secretary emphasized lack of medical opinion and inadequate factual support; asserted counsel had time to investigate before filing	Court held counsel should have conducted more diligence before filing; delayed/limited pre‑filing investigation weighed against finding reasonable basis

Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C., 135 S. Ct. 2158 (discussing the American Rule and fee‑shifting principles)
Chuisano v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (discussing reasonable‑basis standard in Vaccine Program cases)
Woods v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 105 Fed. Cl. 148 (Vaccine Program reasonable‑basis precedents)
McKellar v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (placing burden on petitioner to demonstrate reasonable basis)
Cedillo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 617 F.3d 1328 (expert testimony and the admissibility/relevance of medical literature)
Caves v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 100 Fed. Cl. 119 (noting temporal proximity alone is insufficient to establish causation)