Walden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
15-685
Fed. Cl.Jun 7, 2017Background
- Petitioner Penny Walden filed a Vaccine Act petition alleging fibromyalgia caused by an MMR vaccine administered October 18, 2012; she first sought counsel in December 2014 and filed the petition July 1, 2015.
- Initial symptoms were reported in November 2012 (occupational health call and a November 27, 2012 medical visit reporting joint pain), but medical records show no consistent follow-up for musculoskeletal complaints until a rheumatologist diagnosed fibromyalgia in May 2014.
- No treating physician explicitly opined that the MMR vaccine caused Petitioner’s symptoms, and Petitioner did not retain an expert to provide a medical causation opinion.
- Petitioner’s counsel spent months researching MMR–fibromyalgia cases pre-filing and billed substantial pre-filing time; counsel later moved to withdraw and Petitioner proceeded pro se.
- The case was dismissed by Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof after Petitioner stated she no longer wished to pursue the claim and could not find physicians to support causation.
- Petitioner’s counsel then sought attorneys’ fees and costs; Respondent opposed on the ground the petition lacked reasonable basis. Special Master Sanders denied fees, finding no reasonable basis despite finding Petitioner acted in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition had a "reasonable basis" for awarding attorneys' fees despite dismissal on the merits | Walden (via counsel) argued contemporaneous symptom reports (Nov. 2012 call/visit), patient statements tying onset to vaccine, and the typical diagnostic delay for fibromyalgia supported a reasonable basis | HHS argued the record lacked a medical theory, temporal plausibility, treating-physician causation, and corroborating evidence; no expert supported causation | Held: No reasonable basis; fees denied because petition lacked sufficient medical support, expert opinion, or treating-physician causation evidence |
| Whether good faith was present for fee eligibility | Petitioner sincerely believed vaccine caused her injury | Respondent did not contest good faith | Held: Good faith satisfied (subjective belief), but insufficient without reasonable basis |
| Whether counsel’s pre-filing investigation was adequate to establish reasonable basis | Counsel cited pre-filing research and client communications as justification for filing | Respondent contended counsel failed to identify treating-physician causation or secure expert support before filing | Held: Counsel’s investigation was inadequate given time available; experienced counsel should have recognized lack of viable proof |
| Whether lack of follow-up medical documentation between 2012 and 2014 undermines causation/ reasonable basis | Petitioner argued delayed diagnosis and misdiagnosis explain gaps in records | Respondent argued gaps and absence of contemporaneous documentation undermine causation and temporal sequence | Held: Gaps and long lapse to diagnosis weigh against reasonable basis; temporal sequence insufficiently established |
Key Cases Cited
- Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886 (2013) (fee awards in Vaccine Program conditioned on good faith and reasonable basis)
- Chuisano v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (2014) (discusses totality-of-circumstances approach to reasonable-basis inquiry)
- Woods v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148 (2012) (treated reasonable-basis standards in Vaccine Program claims)
- Caves v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 119 (2010) (distinguishes chronology from causation in vaccine claims)
- McKellar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 297 (2011) (places burden on petitioner to demonstrate reasonable basis)
- Lamb v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 255 (1991) (discusses counsel investigation as part of reasonable-basis review)