Opinion ID: 4556821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Totality of Circumstances under Simmons

Text: Cottingham argues that the reasonable basis analysis is a totality of circumstances test. According to Cottingham, this court in Simmons only removed two factors from the totality of circumstances test: a looming statute of limitations and conduct of counsel. Otherwise, Simmons left the totality of circumstances test intact. Cottingham asserts that the Claims Court’s description of the totality of circumstances test in Amankwaa prevails and that reasonable basis is a totality of circumstances test that includes consideration of “objective evidence, the novelty of the vaccine, and more.” Appellant Br. at 10–11. Cottingham argues that the Special Master abused his discretion by failing to apply a totality of circumstances review and by Case: 19-1596 Document: 36 Page: 9 Filed: 08/19/2020 COTTINGHAM v. HHS 9 requiring Cottingham “to prove causation with a preponderance of evidence to satisfy reasonable basis.” Id. at 11. The Secretary argues that Simmons “implicitly rejected the ‘totality of the circumstances’ test in favor of an objective, evidence-based reasonable basis standard.” Appellee Br. 9, 12–17. The Secretary reasons that we implicitly denounced the totality of the circumstances test because “[n]owhere in Simmons does the Court endorse a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test for evaluating reasonable basis.” Id. at 13. The Secretary asserts that continued application of a totality of the circumstances test “breeds confusion . . . is incompatible with the objective, evidencebased standard . . . [and] inevitably invites consideration of extraneous, subjective factors, such as whether the claim is ‘novel,’ or whether counsel acted reasonably in dismissing . . . a meritless case.” Appellee Br. at 15. We see no reasoned basis for abandoning the Claims Court’s objective, totality of the circumstances inquiry. For the reasons explained below, we do not read Simmons as rejecting this test. We review de novo the Special Master’s application of the law. Simmons, 875 F.3d at 635. When determining whether a petitioner has a “reasonable basis” for filing a claim, the Claims Court often relies on “an objective standard determined by the totality of the circumstances.” Chuisano v United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 276, 286 (Fed. Cl. 2014). The Claims Court has identified nonexclusive factors that it considers in a totality of the circumstances review, including the factual basis of the claim for compensation and any medical evidence supporting that claim. Id. at 288. The Claims Court’s objective, totality of the circumstances test comports with Simmons. In Simmons, we clarified that a reasonable basis can only be established with objective evidence. To be clear, a petitioner seeking attorney fees and costs must show good faith in bringing the claim and that a reasonable basis for Case: 19-1596 Document: 36 Page: 10 Filed: 08/19/2020 10 COTTINGHAM v. HHS the claim raised in the petition existed at the time the petition was filed. Good faith is a subjective test, satisfied through subjective evidence. Reasonable basis, on the other hand, is an objective test, satisfied through objective evidence. Simmons, 875 F.3d at 635 (“‘[O]nly “good faith” is subjective; “reasonable basis” is objective.’”) (quoting Chuisano, 116 Fed. Cl. at 289. The Secretary is correct that the court in Simmons did not mention totality of circumstances. This silence, however, should not be taken either as an endorsement or as a rejection of a “totality of circumstances” test. What was material in Simmons, as in this case, is the question about the type of evidence that is required respectively to satisfy the good faith and reasonable basis requirements of the Vaccine Act. While the court did not portend to identify what constitutes subjective or objective evidence, it did specify two forms of evidence that are subjective, evidence of attorney conduct and a looming statute of limitations. Consideration of these two types of subjective evidence in a reasonable basis analysis would constitute an abuse of discretion. Similarly, we clarify that the failure to consider objective evidence presented in support of a reasonable basis for a claim would constitute an abuse of discretion.