Vaccine Court Pays Lawyers Even When Injury Claims Are Denied
**Vaccine Court Pays Lawyers Despite Claim Denial**
Roberto Tejeda claimed a flu shot triggered his Guillain-Barré Syndrome, filing under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 2020. A special master denied his compensation in March 2025, but just awarded his lawyers $41,343.70 in final fees and costs—on top of $72,793.75 in interim payments. This no-lose setup for attorneys underscores a system designed to encourage vaccine injury claims without bankrupting petitioners.
The case kicked off after Tejeda’s December 2017 flu vaccination allegedly caused GBS, a rare nerve disorder. He petitioned the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ Office of Special Masters for no-fault compensation. Despite years of review, Special Master Daniel T. Horner rejected the claim on merits in 2025. Undeterred, Tejeda’s counsel quickly moved for fees, citing the Vaccine Act’s provision for reasonable attorney reimbursements—even in losing cases if the petition wasn’t frivolous. The government agreed the request met statutory bars, submitting no specific objections to the billed hours, rates, or $10,593.70 in costs. Horner greenlit the full amount, calling the documentation solid and rates market-standard, with payment wired directly to counsel’s account.
In plain terms, the Vaccine Act flips the script on typical litigation: lawyers get paid by Uncle Sam regardless of winning compensation, as long as the case shows “reasonable basis.” This Tejeda ruling—totaling over $114,000 in fees—means petitioners risk nothing financially, fueling a steady stream of claims without fear of bill shock.
No direct crypto angle here, but the parallel screams volumes for DeFi and token battles: U.S. regulators like the SEC wield similar “pay-to-play” powers in enforcement actions, where even dismissed cases drain defendants via discovery costs unless courts intervene. Imagine CFTC classifying a token as a vaccine-like “commodity” with no-fault fee awards—exchanges and protocols could face endless filings, bloating compliance overhead and spooking retail traders. Decentralization hardliners see this as exhibit A for regulatory capture, where government discretion rewards persistence over proof, mirroring stablecoin issuer headaches under potential “program” scrutiny.
Traders, eye fee-shifting precedents like this—they’re kryptonite for overreaching agencies, but a green light for activist lawsuits that tie up crypto innovation.
