Ms. Silva v. HHS - HPV, transverse myelitis (2012)

Ms. Silva, a fourteen-year-old, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, alleging that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine caused her to suffer transverse myelitis.

The HPV vaccine is not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, so Ms. Silva was required to prove causation-in-fact.

Her symptoms of back pain and leg numbness began in April 2007, approximately one month after her first HPV vaccination on January 11, 2007. She received a second HPV vaccination on March 8, 2007.

One neurologist diagnosed her with transverse myelitis, but noted that her symptoms appeared secondary to depression. Another neurologist, Dr.

Niesen, evaluated Ms. Silva over seven days and diagnosed a conversion disorder, excluding transverse myelitis.

Subsequent MRI studies of her spine in 2008 and 2009 were negative for transverse myelitis. A psychiatric evaluation in October 2007 ruled out conversion disorder and depression.

No physician who examined Ms. Silva stated that the HPV vaccine caused her condition.

The Special Master denied compensation due to a failure of proof, finding that the medical records did not support a vaccine-related injury. The Special Master also denied attorneys' fees and costs, determining that the petition lacked a reasonable basis because counsel had not adequately investigated the claim before filing.

The Special Master noted that attorneys spent less than one hour combined reviewing medical records before filing the petition, with most of the preliminary work performed by paralegals. Ms.

Silva appealed the denial of attorneys' fees, arguing that the Special Master applied too strict a standard for "reasonable basis." The United States Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Special Master's decision, deferring to his broad discretion in awarding fees and agreeing that the attorneys' pre-filing review of the medical records was insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for the claim. The court found that the Special Master considered the relevant evidence and stated rational bases for his conclusions, and that his ruling did not exceed the discretion granted by the Vaccine Act.

The Special Master's determinations that petitioner's attorneys did not have a reasonable basis for her claim, did not investigate the case properly before filing, and did not act reasonably were supported by the record.