S.F. v. HHS - HPV, adverse reaction to a Gardasil vaccination (2023)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Carissa Fetters, on behalf of her minor child S.F., filed a petition on February 16, 2021, alleging an adverse reaction to a Gardasil vaccination administered on March 15, 2019. The petition was voluntarily withdrawn 240 days later to allow pursuit of compensation in another forum.
Ms. Fetters subsequently moved for attorneys' fees and costs, arguing the petition was brought in good faith and had a reasonable basis.
The Chief Special Master denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that S.F. received the Gardasil vaccine, as no vaccination record or affidavit explaining its unavailability was provided. The Chief Special Master noted that while Ms.
Fetters' affidavit and medical records contained statements tracing S.F.'s symptoms to the vaccine, these statements were made by Ms. Fetters and not affirmatively adopted or confirmed by medical professionals.
The court reviewed this decision under an abuse of discretion standard. The court affirmed the Chief Special Master's denial of fees, finding that he did not abuse his discretion in determining that Ms.
Fetters failed to establish a reasonable basis for her claim due to the lack of objective evidence of vaccination. Petitioner also moved to disqualify the Chief Special Master, alleging bias against Gardasil claims due to his statements in prior cases and his handling of fees motions.
The court denied the disqualification motion, concluding that the statements and actions cited by the petitioner, including remarks about the "stratagem" of using the Vaccine Program to pursue claims in other forums and the Chief Special Master's decision to stay proceedings involving Gardasil petitions due to the volume of disqualification motions, did not demonstrate actual bias or the appearance of bias. The court found these actions to be permissible case management decisions and reasoned judicial rulings.
The case is primarily a review of the denial of attorneys' fees and a disqualification motion, not an adjudication of the underlying vaccine injury claim. Andrew D.
Downing represented the petitioner, and Voris E. Johnson, Jr. represented the respondent.
The opinion was issued by Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Carissa Fetters, on behalf of minor S.F., filed a petition alleging an adverse reaction to a Gardasil vaccination administered on March 15, 2019. The petition was withdrawn to pursue claims in another forum, after which petitioner sought attorneys' fees and costs. The Chief Special Master denied fees, finding the claim lacked a reasonable basis because petitioner failed to provide a vaccination record or an affidavit explaining its unavailability, and the medical records contained only petitioner's statements about the vaccination. The court affirmed the denial of fees, finding the Chief Special Master did not abuse his discretion, as the evidence presented by petitioner, including her affidavit and statements in medical records, did not constitute sufficient objective evidence of vaccination. Petitioner also moved to disqualify the Chief Special Master, alleging bias due to his statements regarding Gardasil claims and his handling of fees motions. The court denied disqualification, finding the Chief Special Master's statements and actions, such as describing the litigation strategy as a "stratagem" and staying proceedings, were permissible case management decisions and reasoned rulings, not indicative of bias. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew D. Downing, and respondent's counsel was Voris E. Johnson, Jr. The decision was issued by Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow on May 23, 2023.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00928