# ORIGINAL Jfn tbe Wntteb**$>tate~** 

# (!Court of jf 

# eberal**QCIJtin!.~**

# 0 OFFICE OF SPECIALMASTERS No. 15-685 

## MAY -5 2017



## ******** * * * * 

## * PENNY WALDEN,

Petitioner,

V.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Filed: May 5, 2017


## * * * * * * * * 

## * 

# • • * * * *****************

Penny Walden, Pro Se, Chandler, AZ, for Petitioner. Special Master Sanders OSM U.S. COURTOF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Attorneys' Fees and Costs; Contested Reasonable Basis.

Christine M. Becer, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.



### DECISION DENYING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 1

On July 1, 2015, Penny Walden ("Petitioner") petitioned for compensationunder the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa- 10 to 34 (2012) ("Vaccine Act").2 Petitioner alleged that she developed fibromyalgia because she received the MeaslesMumps-Rubella ("MMR") vaccine on October 18, 2012. Petition ("Pet.") at 1-2. Petitionerwas initiallyrepresented by counsel; however, Petitioner's counsel filed a Motionto Withdraw on April 4, 2016. Motion to Withdraw as Att'y, ECF No. 26.

1This decision shall be posted onthe United States Court ofFederal Claims' website, in accordance withthe E-Government Act of2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion ofElectronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule l8(b), a party has 14 days to identify andmove to delete medical orother informationthat satisfiesthe criteria in § 300aa-l2(d)(4)(B). Further, consistentwiththe rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If,uponreview, the undersigned agrees that the identifiedmaterial fits within the requirements ofthat provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 ofthe National ChildhoodVaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2012) (hereinafter "Vaccine Act"or "the Act"). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aaofthe Act.

1 

### REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION JUNE 7 2017 OSM U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMSPetitioner's counsel then filed a Motion for Interim Attorneys' Fees on July 19, 2016. Motion Interim Att'ys' Fees ("Mot."), ECF No. 33. No action was taken onthis motion while the case remained pending. On October 14, 2016, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman issued a decision (at Petitioner's request) concludingproceedings inthe above captionedmatter. Decision, ECF No. 40. Thepending Motion for Interim Fees was then converted to a Motion for Final Fees shortlythereafter, and is now ripe for review. Order (Dec. 29, 2016), ECF No. 43. Forthe reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that the petitionwas not supportedby a reasonable basis. The motion for an award ofattorneys' fees is therefore DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Petitioner's Background and Medical History

Petitionerwas a 50-year-old hospital employee when she received the MMRvaccine as required byheremployer on October 18, 2012. Pet'r'sEx. 5 at 4. Petitionerhas aprior medical history ofgastroesophageal reflux disease and gall stones, including anemergency room visit on March 13, 2012, due to abdominal pain. Pet'r's Ex. 7 at 14. OnNovember 19, 2012, approximately one month following her vaccination, Petitioner called occupational health to report that she had achiness and pain in her neck, knees, and legs that startedthe previous week. Pet'r's Ex. 5 at 5. Petitionertold the nurse that she believed herpainwas a result ofthe MMR vaccine. 

### Id. Petitionerwas instructedto take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for a week and schedule an appointment withherprimary care physician ifher symptoms did not improve. 

### Id. OnNovember 27, 2012, Petitioner sawDr. Kaliani, an internist at the Carle Clinic, forjoint pain in both ankles, knees, elbows and neck. There were no complaints ofswelling. Pet'r's Ex. 6 at I0. Petitionerreported a history ofanxiety, weight gain, insomnia, hair loss, blurred vision, constipation, and skin itching, and was ultimately diagnosed with mild anemia. 

### Id. Petitioner
asserts that during this examination, Dr. Kaliani told her "the virus is in [her] and there is nothing [she] can do about it, and hopefully it will go away." Pet'r's Ex. I at

### iJ 6. There is no account of this conversation in the medical records.

Petitionerfollowed her visit with a phone call to Dr. Kaliani onDecember4, 2012. Pet'r's Ex. 4 at 3. Petitioner asserts that during this call, she wastoldto hold offon her flu shot "due to concernover MMR causing Petitioner's recent symptomology." Mot. at 3. The medical records from the call on December4, 2012 document a diagnosis ofamenorrhea and Petitioner's prior anemia, and note that Petitioner can delay the flu shot. The records do not, however, include any complaints of joint and/or musclepain orachiness, ormentionthe MMRvaccine. Pet'r'sEx. 4 at 3.

On May I, 2013, Petitioner was treated at the Carle Foundation Hospital for injuries suffered when she fell offa ladder. Pet'r's Ex. 6 at 16. She had been taking NSAID for aches and pain, and was referred to a gastroenterologist due to her report ofspitting up blood. 

### Id. at 17. On September 9, 2013, Petitionerwent to the emergency room with complaints of abdominal pain and was diagnosed with gastritis. Pet'r's Ex. 6 at 33-36. She reported "noback, joint, ormuscular complaints." Pet'r'sEx. 6 at 34.

2

### On November 15, 2013, Petitionerreturned to Dr. Kaliani and was diagnosed with peptic ulcers and ahiatal hernia. Pet'r's Ex. 4 at 4-5. Petitionerreported stress and anxiety for the precedingtwo years. Pet'r's Ex. 4 at 2. On May 29, 2014, Petitioner sawrheumatologist, Dr. Katz. Pet'r's Ex. 3 at 6. Petitioner described pain in her ankles, knees, elbows, wrists, and neck that began in November of2012. 

### Id Dr. Katz diagnosed Petitioner with fibromyalgia after extensive testing revealed mild osteoarthritis in the hands and some disc-space narrowing in the cervical spine. 

### Id at 19.

Petitionerfollowed up with Dr. Katz in June and October of2014. Pet'r'sEx. 3. Her complaints were consistent during both visits and included: low energy/exhaustion, poor sleep, and unspecified pain. 

### Id OnApril 29, 2015, Petitioner was seenby Dr. Sackett, DO. Pet'r's Ex. 

### IO at 8-10. Dr. Sackett did not confirm Petitioner's diagnosis offibromyalgiaand found that Petitioner suffered from Vitamin D deficiency and dry eyes. Pet'r's Ex. I0 at 9. In May and June of2015, Petitioner sawneurologist Dr. Yu for headache, blurred vision, neck and back pain, insomnia, paresthesia and arthralgia. Pet'r's Ex. 8 at 9. Petitioner was diagnosed with memory disorder, arthralgia, backache, bilateral blurry vision, cervicalgia, fibromyalgia muscle pain, headache, and insomnia. Pet'r's Ex. 8 at 10.

B. Claim Procedure and Dismissal



### As previously noted, Petitionerfiled her claim onJuly 1, 2015, alleging that she developed fibromyalgia as a direct result ofreceipt ofan MMRvaccine administered approximately eighteen months prior. Pet. at 1-5. Despite the time lapse, Petitionerbelieved that there was a cormection between the vaccine administration and her injuries, and had her initial call with counsel, Mr. Downing, regarding a potential claim in Decemberof2014. Pet'r's Ex. A at I, ECF No. 33-1. According to his billing records, Petitioner's counsel spent six months preparing to file Petitioner's claim, including conversing with Petitionerregarding her medical history and current symptoms, analyzing Petitioner's medical records, and reviewing prior cases brought pursuant to the Vaccine Act that involve the MMRvaccine and fibromyalgia. 

### Id at 1-2. On July 20, 2015, Petitioner filed the first set ofmedical records. Pet'r'sExs. 1-7, ECFNo. 7.

Petitionercontinuedto file medical records for several months and filed a Statement of Completion on October 16, 2015. ECF No. 17. On December 18, 2015, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report. Resp't's Report, ECF No. 19. In it, he argued thatPetitionerhad notprovided a medical theory ofcausation, established a sequence ofcause and effect, or detailed atemporal relationship between the vaccine and the alleged injury. 

### Id at 5-7. Respondent identified Petitioner's initial medical evaluation forjointpain in November of2012, and noted that further complaints of jointpain, or corresponding treatment, did not appear in the medical record again until the May 2014 fibromyalgia diagnosis. 

### Id at 7.
Following Respondent's report, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman scheduled a status conference with the parties for January 14, 2016. During that conference the special master expressed several concerns with the viability ofPetitioner's case. See 

### Scheduling Order (Jan. 15, 2016), ECF No. 20. She was concerned about onset, the lack ofmedical records regarding any symptoms commonly associated with fibromyalgia between November 2012 and May 2014, and

3whether there was even a reasonable basis to file this claim. 

### Id. Special Master HamiltonFieldman ordered Petitionerto file a status report oran appropriate motion by February 11, 2016. 

### Id.

Petitionerfiled two motions for extension oftime that were grantedby Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman, and the Court set Petitioner's newdeadline for April 7, 2016. Order (Mar. 10, 2016), ECF No. 25. OnApril 4, 2016, Petitioner's counsel moved to withdraw as attorney of record. ECFNo. 26. Two days later, Special MasterHamilton-Fieldman granted counsel's motion and ordered Petitionerto file a status reportupdating the Court on herprogress in securing a different attorneybyJune 22, 2016. Order, ECF No. 27. Petitionerrequested additional time to file her status report and Respondent did not object. See Informal Communication, docketed June 20, 2016. Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman extended Petitioner's deadline to file her status report to August 9, 2016, but Petitionerfailed to meet that deadline. Status Report Order, ECF No. 29.

Afterreceiving no further communication from Petitioner, Special Master HamiltonFieldman issued an order dated September 14, 2016, for Petitionerto show cause as to why her petition should not be dismissedby October 5, 2016. Orderto ShowCause at 1, ECF No. 37.

On October 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a response and stated that she was "no longer interested in pursuingthis claim due to [her] failing health," citing "mental and physical stress." Resp. to Orderto Show Cause at 1, ECF No. 39. Petitioner further admittedthat, after speaking with several physicians, she was unable to find anyone who would opine in favor ofcausation." 

### Id. On October 14, 2016, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman dismissed Petitioner's claim for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. Decision, ECF No. 40.

C. Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs

OnJune 17, 2016, Petitioner's counsel filed an Application for Standing and Leave of Courtto File Application for Interim Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Motionfor Leave to File Application, ECF No. 28. Special MasterHamilton-Fieldman granted counsel's motion, and counsel filed his Motion for Interim Attorneys' Fees onJuly 19, 2016. Order, ECF No. 32; Mot. Interim Att'ys' Fees ("Mot."), ECF No. 33. In his motion, Petitioner's counsel responded to the

concerns that Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman voiced during the January 14, 2016 conference. Mot. at 8. Counsel pointed to the call that Petitionerplacedto occupational health onNovember 19, 2012 as evidence ofcontemporaneous medical records regarding initial symptoms. 

### Id. He also stated, "there are multiple other locations inthe medical records where [Petitioner] stated that her fibromyalgia symptoms began after the MMRvaccination." 

### Id. at 8-9. Withrespect to Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman's second concern, Petitioner's counsel did not deny that there

was an extendedperiod oftime between onset ofsymptoms and diagnosis. 

### Id. at 9. Instead, counsel asserted that it takes a while to diagnose fibromyalgia (minimumthree months), and noted that this condition is oftenmisdiagnosed. 

### Id. He contended that Petitionerwas misdiagnosed, despite her symptoms and beliefthatherinjury was vaccine-related. 

### Id. at 9-10. Lastly, counsel argues that Petitioner's condition is not fully documented inher medical records. 

### Id. at 10. Counsel stated that Petitionerdid not mentionthejointpain and related symptoms at every doctor's visit she had because it is "reasonable to believethat an individual in acute stress

4

### would only focus on the major symptom." Id. at 11. Counsel "assume[d] that Petitioner's doctor

was probably only interested in that single issue, as well." Id.

Petitioner's counsel requested $14,879.50 in attorney's fees and $1,007.84 in costs for a total award of$15,957.34. Id. at 14. Counsel billed at an hourlyrate of$350.00 for himself, $195.00 for each ofthe two associates, and $100.00 for each ofthe two legal assistants. Id. at 15-16.

Petitioner's counsel attached to his motion a detailed accounting ofthe time spent on Petitioner's claim. Pet'r's Ex. A, ECF No. 33-1. A careful review ofcounsel's billable hours revealed that counsel spent atotal of46.5 hours or 58% ofhis total time working on this case, on pre-filing matters. Id. at 1-2. In fact, Petitioner's counsel worked on Petitioner's case for approximately seven months priorto filing her Petition. The following line items are of particular relevance:

Entry Attorney Billing entry description Hours Amount Date Billed Billed 

### 2/24/2015 ADD Follow up call with client re: interview with 0.8 $280.00 client for her witness statement information, missing medical records, and additional information. 5/7/2015 ADD Review ofcases as to MMRvaccine and 0.9 $315.00 arthralgia/fibromyalgiato establish a mechanism ofinjury and drafting changes to client's statement. 5/27/2015 JCR Revise and finalize latest draft ofWitness 1.6 $312.00 Statement of[Petitioner] to conform with Snyder decision and cases discussing fibromyalgia causedby MMRvaccination. 5/28/2015 ADD Call with [Petitioner] re: ongoing treatment 0.7 $245.00 and discussion oftreating doctors stating vaccine related; discussion for incorporation ofthis information into her witness
statement. 6/26/2015 JCR Research and analyze case lawregarding 1.2 $234.00 prima facie fibromyalgia onset.

See 

### Ex. A at 2, 6, 7.

Respondent filed a Response to Counsel's Motion and argued that interim fees were not appropriate in this case. Resp't's Resp. (Aug. 3, 2016), ECF No. 34. Respondent also asserted that this claim lacked reasonable basis. Id. at 1. Petitioner's counsel replied to Respondent on August 22, 2016. Pet'r's Reply, ECF No. 36. Counsel also filed a supplementto his reply. Pet'r's Ex. J, ECF No. 38. Respondent's first objectionhas been rendered moot, as the motion is being adjudicated afterthe merit ofPetitioner's claim was resolved. Furthermore, Special



### 5Master Hamilton-Fieldman convertedthe interim fees motion to a motion for final fees on December 29, 2016. 

### See Order, ECF No. 43.



### II. STANDARDS FOR ADJUDICATION

Even when a petitionerin the Vaccine Program does not prevail onhis orher claim and does not receive compensation, a special master may award attorneys' fees and other costs if"the petition was brought in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for whichthe petition was brought." 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(l); 

### Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1893 (2013).

"Good faith" is a subjective standard. 

### Hamrickv. Secyof Health & 

### Human Servs., No. 99-683V, 2007 WL 4793152, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 19, 2007). A petitioner acts in "good faith" ifhe or she honestly believes that a vaccine injury occurred. 

### Turner v. Secyof Health & 

### Human Servs., No. 99-544V, 2007 WL 4410030, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30, 2007). Respondent does not contestthat the petitionwas filed in good faith. 

### See generally Resp't's Resp. There is no evidence that this petitionwas brought in bad faith; therefore, the undersigned finds that the good faith requirement is met.

In contrast, Respondent

### does contest the reasonable basis for this petition. The Federal Circuithas not interpreted "reasonable basis" orprovided any guidance as to howpetitioners satisfy the reasonable basis standard. 

### Chuisano v. Secy of Health & 

### Human Servs., 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 285 (2014) (citing 

### Woods v. Secy of Health & 

### Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 148, 153 (2012)). In the absence ofguidance, special masters have taken different approaches. 

### Silva v. Sec'y of Health & 

### Human Servs., No. 10-101V, 2012 WL 2890452, at *8-9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 22, 2012), 

### mot.for rev. denied, 108 Fed. Cl. 401 (2012).

Recent decisions have examined whether any evidence, when submitted, supports "the claim for which the petitionwas brought." The statute's use ofthe phrase "reasonable basis for which the petition was brought" is consistent with otherportions ofthe statutethat require the petitionto be filed with evidence. 

### See Chuisano v. Sec'y of Health & 

### Human Servs., No. 07- 452V, 2013 WL 6234660, at *8-10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 25, 2013), 

### mot.forrev. denied, 116 Fed. Cl. 276 (2014). Evidence that is relevant to this inquiry may include medical records, affidavits from percipient witnesses, and opinions from retained experts. 

### See 42 U.S.C. § 300aal l ( c). Special Masters should look to the "totality ofthe circumstances" whenreviewing evidence for a reasonable basis. 

### Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 286. In considering the totality of circumstances, factors to be examined are "'thefactual basis, the medical support, and jurisdictional issues,' and the circumstances under which apetition is filed." 

### Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 288 (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 nature and extent ofcounsel's investigation into the claim's underpinnings, both before and after filing, is a relevant consideration. 

### Cortez v. Secyof Health & 

### Human Servs., No. 09-l76V, 2014 WL 1604002, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2014); 

### DiRoma v. Sec'y of Health & 

### Human Servs., No. 90- 3277V, 1993 WL 496981, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 18, 1993) (citing 

### Lamb v. Sec'y of Health andHuman Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 255, 258-59 (1991)). "Theburden is onthe petitionerto affirmatively demonstrate areasonable basis." 

### McKellar v. Sec'y a/Health & 

### Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 297, 305 (2011), 

### decision on remandvacated, 2012 WL 1884703 (May 3, 2012).



### 6Upon review ofthe records and the parties' motions, I do notfind that Petitioner demonstrated areasonable basis for her claim. Forthe following reasons, I deny Petitioner's request for attorneys' fees and costs.



### III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner alleged that she developed fibromyalgia, a conditioncharacterized by "pain and stiffness in the muscles andjoints," as a directresult ofherreceipt ofthe MMR vaccine on October 18, 2012. See Statement ofPenny Walden, Pet'r's Ex. 1; DORLAND'S lLLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 703 (32nd ed. 2012). Petitioner statedthat she felt "some fatigue, swollen neck glands, and minorjointpains for a period of 12-14 days." Pet'r'sEx. 1 at I. Additionally, Petitioner statedthat she developed flu-like symptoms that progresseduntil she awoke with excruciatingjointpain, blurred vision, head pain, and general weakness on the morning of November 13, 2012. Id. Despite Petitioner's prolonged symptoms, she did not seek treatment from a medical professional until November 19, 2012. Pet'r's Ex. 5 at 5. Furthermore, Petitionerdid not seek additional medical treatment or follow-up care for any ofher symptoms. Even when Petitioner did seek treatment for unrelated medical issues in May and June of2013, she did not complain ofachiness orjointpain or muscle pain. Pet'r'sEx. 6 at 12-28. Petitioner did not complainof jointpain again until she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in May of2014,

more than eighteen months after her vaccination. Pet'r'sEx. 3 at 19.

In determining whetherto award compensation, the Vaccine Act directs special masters to base decisions upon "medical records oropinions." 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a). Likewise, medical records or opinions are a foundation for evaluating the reasonable basis for the claim in the petition. See also Stokes v. Sec'y of Health andHuman Servs., No. 14-433V, 2017 WL 1483876, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 4, 2017). Petitionerhas notpresented any opinions or reports ofretained medical experts. Furthermore, Petitionerhas not cited (andthe undersigned
cannot locate) any medical record indicating that a medical professional attributedherjointpain
to her receipt ofthe MMRvaccine. Itis certainly true that some doctors and otherhealth care providers included the MMRvaccination in Petitioner's medical history; however, chronology and causation are not synonymous. Caves v. Sec'y of Health andHuman Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 119, 139-40 (2010), ajj"dwithout opinion, 463 Fed. App'x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

In her Decision for Dismissal, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman quoted Respondent's filings and agreed that "Petitionerhad a single medical evaluation forjointpainonNovember 27, 2012, with no subsequent follow-up visits or complaints for ongoing symptoms in 2012 or 2013." Decision at 1-2. Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman also reminded Petitionerthat she had identified this evidentiary issue with Petitioner's claim in a status conference held on January 14, 2016. Id. at 2. During that conference, Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman discussed the "lack ofcontemporaneous medical records, the length oftime it took for Petitioner
to receive a diagnosis, and the absence ofdocumentation ofsymptoms ofPetitioner's alleged conditions, as well as whether Petitioner's counsel had a reasonable basis to file this claim." Id.

In her Motion for Interim Attorneys' Fees, Petitionerresponded to Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman's concerns byreiterating that she wastold "thevirus is in [her] and there is

7nothing [she] can do about it, and hopefully it will go away." Mot. at 9. Petitionercompared her

case to others wherein a claimantwas told "thatthere was nothing that couldbe done for his symptoms" and the petitionerconsequently "chose to stop going to doctor's appointments." Id at 11. In those cases, witness affidavits, work records, and evenreceipts for over-the-counter treatment may provide the evidence necessary to support a petitioner's claim regarding type of injury and duration. This case, however, is distinguishable from those, due to counsel's admitted lack of"additional investigatory work onthe matter [to] identify additional fact witnesses" and corroborate Petitioner's statements. Mot. at 11. Petitioner's counsel concedesthat investigatory work was not done post-filingto collect additional evidence. Id There is also no adequate explanation ofwhy counsel did not conduct apreliminary investigationto spotthese issues prior to Petitioner filing her petition. Petitioner's claim was filed with several months remaining before the statute oflimitations became a concern. Counsel was under no pressure to file the

case without adequate review, to preserve Petitioner's ability to file. In fact, Petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees includes billing for dates in February and March of2015 that counsel spent reviewing medical records, and dates in May of2015 that counsel spent "to establish mechanism ofinjury" and "discussion [with Petitioner] oftreating doctors stating [injury is] vaccine related." Pet'r'sEx. A at l-2, ECF No. 33-1. Itis clearthat Petitioner's counsel spent several hours researching other claims that allegedjointconditions resulting from MMRvaccinations. Id at 2. And yet, at no time priorto the dismissal ofthis case did Petitionerfile "any persuasive evidence that Petitioner's injuries were caused by a vaccination." Decision, ECF No. 40. Presumably, counsel would have noted after his review ofthe medical records and subsequent conversation with Petitionerthat no treating physician had attributed Petitioner's fibromyalgia to the MMR vaccine, and no one had agreed to produce an expert medical report.

The record before me demonstrates that counsel could have determinedthe claim's viability in light ofthe lack ofany explicit or implicit finding ofcausation by atreating physician, and the inability to identify an expertto provide aplausible theory ofcausation before the petitionwas filed. I note the years ofexperience that Petitioner's counsel has had in the Vaccine Program and his assessment ofnumerous cases. Itis reasonable to expect that a seasoned participant in Vaccine Actcases would be able to conduct, or oversee, the legal research necessary to evaluate a claim when he had the time to do so. Smith v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-990V, 2016 WL 4272357, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 22, 2016).

IV. CONCLUSION

Petitioners in Vaccine Act litigationmust showthat their petitionwas filed in good faith and on areasonable basis in orderto be eligible for attorneys' fees and costs, ifthey do not prevail ontheir claim. Petitioner in the present case did not establish areasonable basis for her petition. Petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is therefore DENIED.

In the absence ofa motion for review filed pursuantto RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTERJUDGMENT in accordance with the terms ofthe above decision.3

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule I !(a), entry of judgmentis expeditedby the parties'jointfiling of notice renouncing the right to seekreview.

8ITIS SO ORDERED.

Special Master

9