VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00143
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00143
Petitioner: Haylee Marie Mallonee
Filed: 2013-02-26
Decided: 2016-08-25
Vaccine: Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2012-05-09
Condition: anaphylactic reaction
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 35452.95

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 26, 2013, Kallie Ann Schmidt, as the mother of Haylee Marie Mallonee, deceased, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that her daughter's death resulted from an anaphylactic reaction to the Hepatitis B Vaccine. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused the anaphylaxis or any other injury, and denied that the death was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on July 6, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the decision in awarding damages. The stipulation awarded a lump sum of $30,000.00, payable to Petitioner as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Haylee Marie Mallonee, as compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Subsequently, on August 24, 2015, the parties filed another joint stipulation regarding attorney's fees and costs. Special Master Corcoran approved this stipulation in a decision dated August 26, 2015, awarding Petitioner's counsel $33,500.00, payable jointly to Petitioner and her counsel, Douglas Lee Burdette. Later, on June 7, 2016, Petitioner sought relief from the attorney's fees judgment. Petitioner requested supplemental fees and costs totaling $1,952.95, representing additional attorney's fees and costs incurred after October 2015. These additional expenses were related to obtaining proof of Petitioner's representative capacity, as required by the respondent, and resolving confusion regarding the finality of the underlying damages judgment. Respondent indicated no objection to the requested supplemental fees and costs. Special Master Corcoran granted the motion for relief from judgment, finding that the circumstances justified revision under RCFC 60(b)(1) for mistake or inadvertence regarding the representative capacity fees, and under RCFC 60(b)(6) for extraordinary circumstances related to the confusion over the damages judgment finality. The Special Master awarded the additional $1,952.95 in attorney's fees and costs, payable jointly to Petitioner and her counsel. The total compensation awarded in this case was $30,000.00 for damages plus $33,500.00 and $1,952.95 for attorney's fees and costs, totaling $35,452.95.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that Haylee Marie Mallonee's death resulted from an anaphylactic reaction to the Hepatitis B Vaccine. Respondent denied causation. The parties ultimately settled the case via stipulation, agreeing to an award of $30,000.00 for damages. No specific medical experts, clinical details regarding the anaphylactic reaction or its onset, or a detailed mechanism of causation were described in the provided public text. The settlement was approved by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. Subsequent decisions addressed attorney's fees and costs, including a supplemental award of $1,952.95 due to additional work related to establishing Petitioner's representative capacity and resolving judgment finality issues, bringing the total award to $35,452.95.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00143-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/10/2015) regarding 54 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-143V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
KALLIE ANN SCHMIDT, Mother of *
HAYLEE MARIE MALLONEE, deceased, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: July 10, 2015
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Hepatitis B Vaccine; Anaphylactic
* Reaction
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas Lee Burdette, Burkett & Burdette, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Glenn MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 26, 2013, Petitioner Kallie Ann Schmidt filed a petition as mother of Haylee
Marie Mallonee, deceased, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that her daughter’s death
resulted from an anaphylactic reaction to receipt of the Hepatitis B Vaccine.
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 (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential
information. Specifically, under 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 whole decision will be available to the public.
(Id.)
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West
1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the Hepatitis B Vaccine caused Petitioner’s daughter to suffer
anaphylaxis or any other injury and further denies that her death was a sequela of a vaccine-related
injury. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a
stipulation filed July 6, 2015, that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should
be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth
therein.
The stipulation awards:
A lump sum of $30,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, as Legal
Representative of the Estate of Haylee Marie Mallonee. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
15(a).
Stipulation ¶ 8.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their
right to seek review.
2

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/15 Page 7 of 7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00143-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/26/2015) regarding 60 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 63 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-143V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
KALLIE ANN SCHMIDT, Mother of *
HAYLEE MARIE MALLONEE, deceased, *
* Filed: August 26, 2015
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas Lee Burdette, Burkett & Burdette, Seattle WA, for Petitioner
Glenn MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On February 26, 2013, Kallie Ann Schmidt, mother of Haylee Marie Mallonee, deceased,
filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
On July 6, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I
subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting
Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation.
On August 24, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in
regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it 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 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential
information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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 whole decision will be available to
the public. Id.

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 63 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2
receive a lump sum of $33,500.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in
compliance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any
reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $33,500.00 payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Douglas Lee Burdette, Esq. In the absence of a motion for
review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT
in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their
right to seek review.

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00143-2
Date issued/filed: 2016-08-25
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/07/2016) Regarding 68 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 71 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-143V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
KALLIE ANN SCHMIDT, Mother of *
HAYLEE MARIE MALLONEE, deceased, *
* Filed: June 7, 2016
Petitioner, *
* Attorney’s Fees and Costs;
v. * Motion for Relief from Judgment;
* RCFC 60(b).
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas Lee Burdette, Burkett & Burdette, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING RELEIF FROM JUDGMENT1
On February 26, 2013, Petitioner Kallie Ann Schmidt filed a petition as mother of Haylee
Marie Mallonee, deceased, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As
provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of
certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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 whole
decision will be available to the public. Id.
1

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 71 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 3
Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”),2 alleging that her daughter’s death resulted from
an anaphylactic reaction to receipt of the Hepatitis B Vaccine. The parties subsequently filed a
stipulation on July 6, 2015 (ECF No. 50), detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner, which
served as the basis for my decision awarding damages dated July 10, 2015 (ECF No. 54). The
parties later filed a stipulation regarding attorney’s fees and costs on August 24, 2015 (ECF No.
58), which I adopted as my fees decision dated August 26, 2015 (ECF No. 60).
Subsequent to the entry of the Fees Judgment on September 3, 2015 (ECF No. 62),
Petitioner incurred additional fees and costs.3 First, on October 20, 2015, Respondent notified
Petitioner that proof of Petitioner’s “representative capacity,” not yet on file, was needed in a
Program case such as this one where an action was filed on behalf of a deceased minor child.
Second, there was confusion amongst the parties and the Court regarding the finality of the
underlying damages judgment, and counsel for Petitioner had to devote time to this matter (which
was ultimately resolved).
Based on the above, Petitioner now moves for relief from the Fees Judgment. Petitioner is
requesting supplemental fees and cost related to the efforts to obtain payment of judgment, as well
as the time and costs incurred in getting Petitioner appointed as Personal Representative in the
amount of $1,952.95 (representing attorney’s fees since October 2015 totaling $1,162.50, plus
costs incurred totaling $340.45). Respondent has represented that she has no objection to the
additional fees and costs requested.
Under Vaccine Rule 36, Appendix B, RCFC (the “Vaccine Rules”), a party may seek relief
from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60. Ms. Schmidt’s motion invokes Rule 60(b), which 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).
Here, I find that Petitioner has establish a basis for revising the Fees Judgment under Rule
60(b). First, I find Rule 60(b)(1), which permits relief on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect,” applicable to the additional costs associated with establishing
Petitioner as Personal Representative of her daughter’s estate. See RCFC 60(b)(1). The fees
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West
1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.
3 Petitioner originally filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, dated May 27, 2016, which included
invoices outlining the additional work performed on this case. ECF No. 65. However, during a status conference on
June 3, 2016, I instructed the parties that this supplemental motion should be stricken, and instead a motion for relief
from the judgment should be filed. Petitioner did so on June 6, 2016. ECF No. 67. I will strike Petitioner’s
Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as improperly filed, but I will rely upon the information contained
within it (invoices detailing additional fees and costs incurred) in granting the relief now requested.
2

Case 1:13-vv-00143-UNJ Document 71 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3
associated with the establishment of Petitioner as Personal Representative were not included in the
original application as a result of a mistake or inadvertence, as the parties stipulation clearly
contemplated Petitioner receiving payment in her role “as Legal Representative of the Estate of
Haylee Marie Mallonee” (ECF No. 54 at 4). Second, I find that the additional time Petitioner’s
counsel devoted to this case to resolve questions surrounding the finality of the damages judgment
represents “extraordinary circumstances” for which relief should be permitted under Rule 60(b)(6).
See RCFC 60(b)(6) (permitting relief on the grounds of “any other reason that justifies the relief.”).
Furthermore, I find that the Rule 60(b) requirement that relief may only be obtained by motion and
a showing of “just terms” has been satisfied in this case. 4 RCFC 60(b).
The motion does not challenge or dispute the underlying merits of the prior fee decisions.
The requested correction will merely increase the size of the Fees Judgment to reflect additional
work performed on this case after October 2015. 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 establish a sound basis for
revising the Fees Judgment under Rule 60(b).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, (1) the Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed to strike Petitioner’s
Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 65), as improperly filed, and
(2) Petitioner is awarded an additional $1,952.95 in attorney’s fees and costs in this action in
the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Douglas Lee
Burdette, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with these terms.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
4 The grounds for relief under RCFC 60(b)(6) require 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 &
Human Servs., 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 & Human Servs., No. 06-0710, 2011 WL 6828475, *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.”).
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their
right to seek review.
3