Ciaccio v. HHS - other (1992)

An unnamed petitioner filed a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The specific vaccine and alleged injury are not described in the available case document.

The special master filed a decision on June 19, 1992. Petitioners had thirty days to file a motion for review; the deadline fell on Monday, July 20, 1992.

The office of petitioners' counsel received the special master's decision on July 6, 1992. Petitioners' counsel was out of town between June 27 and July 17, 1992.

On July 21, 1992 — one day past the deadline — petitioners' counsel filed a motion for review along with a motion for an extension of time to file a memorandum of objections. The Clerk of Court entered judgment in accordance with the special master's decision.

Petitioners moved to vacate the judgment under RUSCC 60(b), arguing that the one-day delay constituted excusable neglect. Judge Margolis denied the motion.

The court noted that the office had nearly two weeks from the date it received the special master's decision (July 6) in which to file the motion before the deadline. Even if the office could not act during counsel's absence, counsel returned on July 17 and had two full days before the July 20 deadline in which to file a timely motion.

The approach of filing a timely motion for review while seeking an extension of time to file the substantive memorandum of objections had been available and successfully used by the same counsel in a prior vaccine case (Ormechea v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1683V (Cl.Ct.

July 13, 1992)). The court held that counsel's failure to file a timely motion amounted to a mistake, and that attorney mistake without more does not constitute excusable neglect sufficient to vacate a final judgment.