Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealgood faith
attorneygood faithrespondent

Related Cases

Lawrence v. Miller, 11 N.Y.3d 588, 901 N.E.2d 1268, 873 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 09434
View Case »
Newburger Cotton Co. v. Stevens, 167 Ark. 257, 267 S.W. 777, 40 A.L.R. 1279
View Case »
Cavel Intern., Inc. v. Madigan, 554 U.S. 902, 128 S.Ct. 2950 (Mem), 171 L.Ed.2d 863, 76 USLW 3410, 76 USLW 3650, 76 USLW 3654
View Case »
Allegheny Development Corp., Inc. v. Barati, 166 W.Va. 218, 273 S.E.2d 384
View Case »
Rooney v. Secretary of Army, 405 F.3d 1029, 365 U.S.App.D.C. 326
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U.S. 369, 133 S.Ct. 1886, 185 L.Ed.2d 1003, 81 USLW 4322, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4982, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6312, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 207

Facts

Dr. Melissa Cloer received three Hepatitis B vaccinations between September 1996 and April 1997. Shortly after the third vaccine, she began experiencing symptoms that led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2003. In 2005, she filed a claim for compensation under the NCVIA, alleging that the vaccine caused or exacerbated her MS. The Chief Special Master concluded that her claim was untimely because the 36-month limitations period began when she first experienced symptoms in 1997, a conclusion later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

In 1997, shortly after receiving her third Hepatitis–B vaccine, respondent Cloer began to experience symptoms that eventually led to a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis in 2003. In 2004, she learned of a link between MS and the Hepatitis–B vaccine, and in 2005, she filed a claim for compensation under the NCVIA, alleging that the vaccine caused or exacerbated her MS.

Issue

Whether an untimely petition under the NCVIA can qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

Whether an untimely petition under the NCVIA can qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it was filed in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

Rule

An NCVIA petition is eligible for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for the claim, even if the petition is ultimately found to be untimely.

An untimely NCVIA petition may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for its claim.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the statutory language of the NCVIA, concluding that the term 'filed' is understood to mean when a petition is delivered to and accepted by the appropriate court officer. The Court found that the NCVIA's provisions do not suggest that the reason for a petition's dismissal, such as untimeliness, nullifies the initial filing. Therefore, as long as the petition was brought in good faith and had a reasonable basis, it is eligible for attorney's fees despite being untimely.

Applying this ordinary meaning to the text at issue, it is clear that an NCVIA petition delivered to the court clerk, forwarded for processing, and adjudicated in a proceeding before a special master is a 'petition filed under section 300aa–11.' So long as it was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, it is eligible for an award of attorney's fees, even if it is ultimately unsuccessful.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that an untimely NCVIA petition may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for the claim.

We hold that an NCVIA petition found to be untimely may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for its claim.

Who won?

Dr. Melissa Cloer prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court ruled that her untimely petition was eligible for attorney's fees, affirming the lower court's decision that recognized the good faith and reasonable basis of her claim.

The en banc Federal Circuit found that she was entitled to recover fees on her untimely petition.

You must be