Leonard Bucci v. HHS - other (1994)

On September 25, 1990, Leonard Bucci, a minor, by his mother and guardian Artemis Bucci, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and resolved all items of compensation except for one unrelated issue.

At a hearing on November 13, 1991, agreed compensation was presented, but pain and suffering damages and attorneys' fees were not discussed. Petitioner alleged that the parties later agreed that Leonard Bucci would receive the statutory maximum of $80,000 for attorneys' fees, costs, and pain and suffering, with the pain and suffering award to be $30,000 less the attorneys' fees and costs.

This alleged agreement was reportedly conveyed to Special Master Elizabeth E. Wright during a telephonic status conference on June 30, 1992.

Special Master Wright issued a decision on July 22, 1992, which did not address pain and suffering damages. A judgment was entered on August 24, 1992, which Leonard Bucci accepted on September 29, 1992.

On December 16, 1992, petitioner filed a motion to correct the judgment, seeking to change the caption, which was denied by the special master on April 9, 1993. Separately, on September 25, 1992, petitioner requested attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties later agreed to set attorneys' fees and costs at $13,653. Chief Special Master GolMewicz, to whom the case had been reassigned, awarded $13,653 for attorneys' fees and costs on March 3, 1993.

Judgment was entered on March 4, 1993, and payment was mailed on July 26, 1993. On December 20, 1993, Leonard Bucci filed a motion to correct the compensation judgment, arguing that it omitted $16,347 for pain and suffering, seeking relief under RCFC 60(a) or 60(b)(1).

Respondent argued that the special master lacked jurisdiction and that pain and suffering was never discussed. Chief Special Master GolMewicz determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the post-judgment motion and forwarded it to the Court of Federal Claims.

The court denied the motion, finding no basis for relief under RCFC 60(a) or 60(b)(1). The court noted that pain and suffering damages are discretionary under the Vaccine Act, that the omission resulted from a failure to perform a discretionary act, and that the petitioner's nine-month delay in filing the motion to correct the judgment was not reasonable and offered no explanation, potentially prejudicing the respondent.

The court also found that the judgment accurately reflected the Chief Special Master's decision and that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time, especially given the nine-month delay without explanation. The court concluded that the judgment was not void.

The public decision does not describe the specific vaccine(s) administered, the date(s) of vaccination, the specific condition(s) alleged, the clinical story, or the mechanism of causation.