G!NAL
In the United Statea Court of Iieheral Glliz_ii\ijx_ziE D
()FFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS __ 8
>l<>l<>l<>|<>|<>l<>|<>l<>l<>l<>|<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>|<>|<>|<>l<>l< OSM
U.S. COUREA?§S
SONAL PATEL, * "E°ER’“'°
* No. 14-421\/
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
>l<
v. * Filed: January 8, 2016
>l<
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees; reasonable basis;
AND HUl\/IAN SERVICES, * withdrawal of counsel
»»<
Respondent. *
>l<>l<>l<>l<>|<>l=>|<>|<>l<>|<>l<>l<>|<>l<>|<>|<>l<>|<>|<>l=>l<
Sonal Patel, Stamford, CT, pro se;
l\/lichael G. l\/IcLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC, l\/Iemphis, TN,
former counsel of record for petitioner;
Lara A. Englund, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent
PUBLISHED DECISION DENYING ATTORNEYS’ FEES'
Represented by an attorney at the onset of this case§ Sonal Patel filed a
petition under the National Childhood Vaccine injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-l0
through 34 (2012), on May l5, 2()14. Her petition alleged that she suffered
injuries, including neurologic impairments, tachycardia, heart/chest palpitations,
l Because this published decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s
action in this case, the special master intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal
Claims’s website, in accordance with the E~Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116
Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002).
All decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they
contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential,
or medical or similar information whose disclosure would clearly be an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. When such a decision or designated substantive order is filed, a party has 14 days to
identify and to move to delete such information before the document’s disclosure. If the special
master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the categories listed above, the
special master shall delete such material from public access. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l2(d)(4);
Vaccine Rule l8(b).
breast cysts, chest pain, insomnia, physical impairments, Sjogren’s syndrome-like
gsyrrifptoms, conversion disorder-like symptoms, and/or other injuries, resulting
from the receipt of the human papillomavirus ("HPV") vaccination administered to
her on November 15, 2012. After l\/ls. Patel’s attorney withdrew his
representation, l\/ls. Patel did not prosecute her case and the case was dismissed.
Before l\/ls. Patel’s attorney withdrew, he filed a motion for an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs on an interim basis. No action was taken on this motion
while the case remained pending. Now, because the merits of l\/Is. Patel’s case
have been adjudicated, the motion for attorneys’ fees is ripe. The undersigned has
reviewed the record and determined that l\/Is. Patel’s case does not fulfill a
requirement to be eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees -- reasonable basis.
Therefore, the motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED.
Procedural History
l\/ls. Patel’s attorney submitted her petition on l\/lay 15, 2014. The attorney
also submitted medical records six days later. Exhibits l~9.
After l\/Is. Patel’s attorney filed a statement of completion, an initial status
conference was held on October 28, 2014. The parties expressed some interest in
attempting to resolve the case. Order, issued Oct. 30, 2014. However, for
unknown reasons, l\/ls. Patel’s attorney could not present a demand to the
Secretary.
On April l3, 2015, l\/ls. Patel’s attorney filed two motions. One was a
motion to withdraw (ECF No. 23). The other was a motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs (ECF No. 22). Although l\/ls. Patel filed an objection to the motion to
withdraw, the motion to withdraw was granted. Simultaneously, l\/[s. Patel was
ordered to file a status report describing her plan to proceed. Order, issued June 2,
2015. l\/Is. Patel never responded to this order or to any of several efforts to
communicate with her. This failure to prosecute eventually led to the dismissal of
her case. Decision, filed Dec. 2, 2015.
With respect to the motion for attorneys’ fees, the Secretary filed an
opposition. The Secretary presented two arguments. First, the Secretary argued
that an award of attorneys’ fees on an interim basis was not appropriate. Resp’t’s
Opp’n, filed April 27, 2015, at 2-4. This objection has now been rendered moot, as
the motion is being adjudicated after Ms. Patel’s merits case has been resolved.
Second, the Secretary argued that l\/Is. Patel’s case lacked a reasonable basis I_cL at
4-6.
When the Secretary filed this opposition, Ms. Patel’s attorney was still
counsel of record. He remained counsel of record for slightly more than one
month before his motion to withdraw was granted. During this time, he did not file
a reply brief to answer any of the Secretary’s objections to the pending request for
attorneys’ fees.
Standards for Ad}`udication
Under the "American rule," each litigant pays for its participation in
litigation. Bal“'“cf€r,,,»»»
Christian J. l\//Ioran
Special l\/laster