VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_10-vv-00223 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_10-vv-00223 Petitioner: Susan Williamsen Filed: 2014-02-05 Decided: 2014-03-04 Vaccine: tetanus Vaccination date: 2009-04-01 Condition: Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 4874 AI-assisted case summary: Susan Williamsen filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging injuries resulting from a tetanus vaccination she received in April 2009. The parties had previously entered into a stipulation for an award, which was incorporated into a judgment on July 12, 2013. A separate stipulation for fees and costs was approved, leading to a fee judgment on September 9, 2013. Williamsen later filed a motion for relief from the fee judgment, seeking to include an omitted mediation invoice of $4,874.50. The court found that this omission was a clerical mistake or oversight correctable under Rule 60(a) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. The court granted the motion, awarding an additional $4,874.50 in attorneys' fees to cover the mediation services. This amount was to be paid jointly to Susan Williamsen and her counsel. The case was compensated, with the additional award specifically for mediation costs. Theory of causation field: unclear Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_10-vv-00223-cl-extra-1035211 Date issued/filed: 2013-07-03 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 1035211 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 10-223V Filed: July 3, 2013 ************************************* SUSAN WILLIAMSEN, * NOT TO BE PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * Special Master Zane * v. * Stipulation; tetanus-diptheria (“Td”) * vaccine; systemic lupus erythematosus SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SLE”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* Anne Toale, Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner Lisa Watts, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1 On July 3, 2013, the parties in the above-captioned case filed a Stipulation memorializing their agreement as to the appropriate amount of compensation in this case. Petitioner alleged that she suffered from systemic lupus erythematosus (“SLE”) as a consequence of her receipt of the tetanus-diptheria (“Td”) vaccine, which is a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R § 100.3(a), and which she received on or about April 21, 2009. Petitioner alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Petitioner also 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, § 205, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2006). The decisions of the special master will be made available to the public with the exception of those portions that contain trade secret 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. As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting the redaction from this decision of any such alleged material. In the absence of a timely request, which includes a proposed redacted decision, the entire document will be made publicly available. If the special master, upon review of a timely filed motion to redact, agrees that the identified material fits within the categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from the decision made available to the public. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4); Vaccine Rule 18(b). 1 represents that there have been no prior awards or settlement of a civil action for these damages. Petitioner seeks compensation related to her injuries pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 to 34. Respondent denies that the Td vaccine caused Petitioner’s SLE or any other injury and denies that Petitioner’s current disabilities are sequelae of her alleged vaccine-related injury. Nonetheless, the parties have agreed informally to resolve this matter. Stipulation, Appendix A hereto. The undersigned hereby ADOPTS the parties’ said Stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Specifically, Petitioner is awarded: a) a lump sum of $230,000.00, representing compensation for the reimbursement of a State of California Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and Department of Health Care Services, Personal Injury Unit/MS 4720, P.O. Box 997421, Sacramento, CA 95899-7421. Petitioner agrees to endorse this check to the Department of Health Care Services, Personal Injury Unit; and b) a lump sum of $770,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daria J. Zane Daria J. Zane Special Master 2 This document constitutes a final “decision” in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 12(d)(3)(A). Unless a motion for review of this decision is filed within 30 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_10-vv-00223-0 Date issued/filed: 2014-03-04 Pages: 4 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: February 5, 2014) regarding 66 DECISION of Special Master. Docketed for Administrative Purposes Signed by Special Master Brian H Corcoran. (jt1) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCaassee 11::1100--vvvv--0000222233--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 6679 FFiilleedd 0033//0044//1144 PPaaggee 11 ooff 44 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 10-223V (To be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SUSAN WILLIAMSEN, * * Petitioner, * Filed: February 5, 2014 * v. * Attorneys’ fees; mediation costs; * motion for relief from judgment; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * RCFC 60(a); RCFC 60(b) HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Anne Carrión Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner Lisa Ann Watts, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION1 On April 12, 2010, Petitioner Susan Williamsen filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging injuries resulting from her tetanus vaccination in April 2009. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation in July 2013 detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner, which was incorporated into a judgment that the prior Special Master entered on July 12, 2013. The parties also entered into a stipulation regarding fees and costs, which (after the special master’s approval by a decision dated August 29, 2013) resulted in a fee judgment dated September 9, 2013. 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B) and Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the entire decision will be available to the public. Id. 1 CCaassee 11::1100--vvvv--0000222233--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 6679 FFiilleedd 0033//0044//1144 PPaaggee 22 ooff 44 Petitioner now moves for relief from the Fee Judgment, asserting that the parties inadvertently omitted from their fee stipulation a mediation invoice in the amount of $4,874.50. Because I find that the existing Fee Judgment does reflect an oversight or omission, I will grant the motion. Applicable Legal Standards for Relief from Judgment Under Vaccine Rule 36, Appendix B, RCFC (the “Vaccine Rules”), a party may seek relief from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60. Ms. Williamsen’s motion invokes Rule 60(b)(1), which permits relief on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” RCFC 60(b)(1). However, there are alternative bases for such relief under RCFC 60(a), applying different legal standards. I must therefore determine which standard best applies to the present motion. In determining whether a motion is properly classified under RCFC 60(a) or RCFC 60(b), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated: Rule 60(a) affords relief from minor clerical mistakes or errors arising from simple oversight or omission. See James W. Moore and Jo Deshap Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.06[1] (2d ed.1993); see also United States v. Bealey, 978 F.2d 696, 699 (Fed.Cir.1992). It is intended to allow the judgment to “speak the truth,” but not to substantially alter the rights of the parties thereto. See 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2854 (1973 & Supp.1993). Errors of a more substantial nature are more appropriately correctable under subdivision 60(b). See Moore, supra, ¶ 60.06[4]. Patton v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1021, 1029 (Fed.Cir.1994). Rule 60(a) thus allows a court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record,” and is appropriate where the order, decision or judgment does not reflect what the court intended. RCFC 60(a); Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d 1187, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)2 courts may “correct clerical errors in previously issued orders in order to conform the record to the intentions of the court and the parties”); see also Companion Health Services, Inc. v. Kurtz, 675 F.3d 75, 87 (1st Cir. 2012) (finding relief under Rule 60(a) appropriate only where “the judgment failed to reflect the court’s intention” and not where the correction would alter the deliberate choice of the judge) (quoting Bowen Inv., Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 2007)). 2 The Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims generally mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). See RCFC 2002 rules committee note (“[I]nterpretation of the court’s rules will be guided by case law and the Advisory Committee Notes that accompany the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); see also Rivera Agredano v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 315, 317 n.3 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (RCFC 60(b) conforms to FRCP 60). 2 CCaassee 11::1100--vvvv--0000222233--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 6679 FFiilleedd 0033//0044//1144 PPaaggee 33 ooff 44 Rule 60(b), by contrast, provides a mechanism for correcting more serious kinds of errors in a judgment or order. It delineates five specific circumstances for relief, plus a catch-all permitting a party to obtain modification of a decision based upon “any other reason that justifies relief.” RCFC 60(b). Rule 60(b) relief may only be obtained by motion and a showing of “just terms,” (Id.)3, whereas Rule 60(a) relief may be granted by the Court upon its own volition with or without notice to the parties. Here, I find that the relief requested by Petitioner is warranted under Rule 60(a), independent of whether Petitioner could also establish a basis for revising the Fee Judgment under Rule 60(b)(1). As demonstrated by the mediation services invoice submitted by Petitioner at my request subsequent to the filing of this motion, the omitted costs reflect Petitioner’s share of fees owed to the mediator who assisted in the successful settlement that ended this action. The special master previously responsible for presiding over this action was informed of the parties’ intent to participate in mediation (see December 12, 2012 Prehearing Order (ECF No. 47) at 5) as well as the success of the mediation itself. Thus, the mediation invoice in question does not constitute a category of expense not previously disclosed in these proceedings. Moreover, the motion does not challenge or dispute the underlying merits of the prior fee decision that produced the Fee Judgment. The requested correction will increase the size of the Fee Judgment by less than five percent, with the entirety of the requested additional amount being paid to a third party mediator. The motion is also unopposed by Respondent, further underscoring the extent to which it is the view of the parties that the error in question, while worthy of correction, is substantively minor. Such circumstances constitute sufficient “oversight or omission” to grant the relief requested without a greater showing by Petitioner. See Masias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 2013 WL 680760, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2013) (correcting judgment containing miscalculation of attorneys’ fees under RCFC 60(a)). CONCLUSION Accordingly, Petitioner is awarded an additional $4,874.50 in attorneys’ fees to pay for mediation services utilized in this action. Specifically, Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $4,874.50 in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner (Susan 3 The grounds for relief under RCFC 60(b)(6) are even more difficult to satisfy, requiring a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” See Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198, 202 (1950) (finding petitioner did not fulfill the “extraordinary circumstances” requirement necessary for vacating judgment). The Court of Federal Claims has granted relief under RCFC 60(b)(6) only where, without such relief, substantial rights of a party would be violated. See Freeman v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 35 Fed. Cl. 280, 281 (1996) (finding the alleged circumstances “warrant the reopening of the case in the interest of justice.”); Coleman v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, No. 06-0710, 2011 WL 6828475, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 07, 2011) (finding relief from judgment proper under Rule 60(b)(6) to prevent “harm to substantial rights of petitioner that would result if the requested relief were not granted.”). 3 CCaassee 11::1100--vvvv--0000222233--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 6679 FFiilleedd 0033//0044//1144 PPaaggee 44 ooff 44 Williamsen) and Petitioner’s counsel (Anne C. Toale, Esq., of the law firm of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA). In the absence of a motion for review filed under RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this order. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 28.1, the clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this decision to the presiding judge. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the right to seek review. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master 4