Ferrer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0469V

DANILO FERRER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner,

v. Filed: June 18, 2026

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato, Shannon Law Firm, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.

Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 11, 2021, Danilo Ferrer filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on August 3, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On November 7, 2025, I issued a decision dismissing Petitioner’s claim. ECF No. 51.

1Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made

publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $70,221.52 (representing $69,519.90 in fees plus $701.62 in costs). Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed December 23, 2025, ECF No. 56. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 52.

Respondent reacted to the motion on January 5, 2026, stating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for a fees award are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 57. On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply requesting that the amount of fees and costs listed in Petitioner’s motion be awarded. ECF No. 58.

I. Reasonable Basis

A. Legal Standard

Motivated by a desire to ensure that petitioners have adequate assistance from counsel when pursuing their claims, Congress determined that attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded even in unsuccessful claims. H.R. REP. NO. 99-908, at 22 reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6363; see also Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369, 380 (2013) (discussing this goal when determining that attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded even when the petition was untimely filed). As Judge Lettow noted in Davis, “the Vaccine Program employs a liberal fee-shifting scheme.” Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 627, 634 (2012). It may be the only federal fee-shifting statute that permits unsuccessful litigants to recover fees and costs.

However, Congress did not intend that every losing petition be automatically entitled to attorney’s fees. Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1994). And there is also a prerequisite to even obtaining fees in an unsuccessful case. The special master or court may award attorney’s fees and costs in a case in which compensation was not awarded only if “that the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for the claim for which the petition was brought.” Section 15(e)(1). Reasonable basis is a prerequisite to a fee award for unsuccessful cases – but establishing it does not automatically require an award, as special masters are still empowered by the Act to deny or limit fees. James-Cornelius on behalf of E. J. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 984 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“even when these two requirements are satisfied, a special master retains discretion to grant or deny attorneys’ fees”).

3

As the Federal Circuit explained, whether a discretionary fees award is appropriate involves two distinct inquiries – a subjective one when assessing whether the petition was brought in good faith and an objective one when ascertaining whether reasonable basis existed. Simmons v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.3d 632, 635 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Chuisano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 289 (2014)). “Good faith is a subjective test, satisfied through subjective evidence.” Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 971 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Cottingham I”). “[T]he ‘good faith’ requirement . . . focuses upon whether petitioner honestly believed he had a legitimate claim for compensation.” Turner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-0544V, 2007 WL 4410030, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007).

Cases in which good faith has been found to be lacking often involve petitioners who failed to produce or actively concealed evidence undermining their claims. Purnell- Reid v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1101V, 2020 WL 2203712 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 6, 2020); Crowding v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-0876V, 2019 WL 1332797 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 26, 2019); Heath v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 08-0086V, 2011 WL 4433646 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 25, 2011); Carter v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-3659V, 1996 WL 402033 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 3, 1996).

“Additionally, a petitioner’s attorney’s conduct may also be relevant when evaluating good faith.” Purnell-Reid, 2020 WL 2203712, at *6. “Counsel still have a duty to investigate a Program claim even if they reasonably find their client to be a credible individual.” Cortez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-0176V, 2014 WL 1604002, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2014). Factors, such as a looming statute of limitations and the conduct of counsel, are properly considered when determining whether good faith exists – but do not bear on the claim’s objective basis. Simmons, 875 F.3d at 636; Amankwaa v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 138 Fed. Cl. 282, 289 (2018) (“the effort that an attorney makes to investigate a claim or to ensure that a claim is asserted before the expiration of the statutory limitations period . . . are properly evaluated in determining whether a petition was brought in good faith”).

“Reasonable basis, on the other hand, is an objective test, satisfied through objective evidence.” Cottingham I, 971 F.3d at 1344. The reasonable basis requirement examines “not at the likelihood of success [of a claim] but more to the feasibility of the claim.” Turner, 2007 WL 4410030, at *6 (quoting Di Roma v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-3277V, 1993 WL 496981, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 1993)). The Federal Circuit recently explained “that a reasonable basis analysis is limited to objective evidence, and that subjective considerations, such as counsel’s subjective views on the

4

adequacy of a complaint, do not factor into a reasonable basis determination.” James- Cornelius, 984 F.3d at 1379.

Although clearly easier to meet than the preponderant standard required for compensation, “courts have struggled with the nature and quantum of evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis.” Wirtshafter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 155 Fed. Cl. 665 at 671 (Fed. Cl. 2021). “[I]t is generally accepted that ‘a petitioner must furnish some evidence in support of the claim.’” Id. (quoting Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 288, emphasis added in Wirtshafter). Citing the prima facie elements of a successful claim described in Section 11(c)(1), the Federal Circuit recently instructed that the level of the objective evidence sufficient for a special master to find reasonable basis should be “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of proof.” Cottingham I, 971 F.3d at 1345-46. “This formulation does not appear to define reasonable basis so much as set its outer bounds.” Cottingham v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 159 Fed. Cl. 328, 333, (Fed. Cl. 2022), aff’d without op., No. 2022-1737, 2023 WL 7545047 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2023) (“Cottingham II”). “[T]he Federal Circuit’s statement that a special master ‘could’ find reasonable basis based upon more than a mere scintilla does not mandate such a finding.” Cottingham II, 159 Fed. Cl. at 333 (citing Cottingham I, 971 F.3d at 1346).

Furthermore, the issue of reasonable basis is not a static inquiry. The reasonable basis which existed when a claim was filed may cease to exist as further evidence is presented. Perreira, 33 F.3d at 1377. In Perreira, the Federal Circuit affirmed a special master’s determination that reasonable basis was lost after Petitioner’s “expert opinion, which formed the basis of the claim, was found to be unsupported by either medical literature or studies.” Id. at 1376.

B. Existence of Reasonable Basis in this Case

I dismissed this case because I determined that Petitioner had not preponderantly established that the onset of his shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Decision Dismissing Case (ECF No. 51) at *12-14. The combination of Petitioner’s treatment delay, his lack of precision in reporting his symptoms, and his apparent invocation of an onset outside the 48-hour window did not collectively preponderate in favor of a two-day onset finding. Specifically, the medical note that stated that Petitioner received the flu vaccine and then “3 weeks later, he had difficulty raising and reaching with his arm” was particularly problematic. Id. at 12. This cumulative evidence foreclosed an onset finding in Petitioner’s favor, and thus his SIRVA claim failed.

5

Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the low reasonable basis standard. There was no dispute of Petitioner’s receipt of a covered flu vaccine in his left arm, followed by medical record documentation of a (likely mild) left shoulder injury. After the noted nine-month treatment gap, the established primary care provider again documented objective deficits in the left shoulder, and recorded Petitioner’s history of a one-year long history of injury ongoing since the flu vaccination. Moreover, as I stated in the Dismissal Decision, Petitioner satisfied the six-month severity requirement. And there was enough factual uncertainty as to onset to render it a reasonably-disputed issue. Thus, there is objective proof in support of the claim. And there is no other basis for a denial of fees. Therefore, the only remaining question is the appropriate amount of the attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded.

ATTORNEY FEES

I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through the end of 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. And the time spent on the matter was reasonable as well.

ATTORNEY COSTS

Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No.

56-4. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full.

CONCLUSION

The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded fees and costs in the total amount of $70,221.52 (representing $69,519.90 in fees plus $701.62 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. 3

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master