Patrice Seamon v. HHS - other (1996)

Petitioners Almedia and Joseph Freeman filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act on behalf of their daughter, Patrice Seamon. The initial letter of intent was filed on February 27, 1991.

The petitioners, acting pro se, requested extensions to gather medical records and hire an attorney. They subsequently contacted Norman J.

Lerum, an attorney, paid him $200, and provided him with documentation, understanding that he would handle the prosecution of the case. However, no further information was filed with the court.

On April 28, 1992, the Chief Special Master dismissed the petition with prejudice for failure to state or substantiate a claim. Judgment was entered on May 29, 1992.

A notice of dismissal sent to the petitioners was returned as undeliverable due to an incorrect address. In September 1995, the petitioners learned of the dismissal and filed a motion to reopen the case, citing their attorney's alleged failure to prosecute and their own lack of knowledge of the dismissal.

The court considered the motion under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Rules for the United States Court of Federal Claims, which allows relief from a judgment for any reason justifying it, provided the motion is made within a reasonable time. The court found that the petitioners' delay of over three years was reasonable given their asserted lack of knowledge of the dismissal and their belief that their attorney was handling the case.

The court noted that while attorney negligence generally does not qualify as excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), gross negligence or misconduct of counsel can be grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court granted the motion to reopen, vacating the dismissal and remanding the case to the Office of Special Masters.

The court preserved the issue of petitioners' diligence for further examination by the Special Master, who was also directed to make findings of fact regarding the petitioners' diligence in prosecuting the action and in filing the motion to reopen. The court did not make findings regarding the attorney's conduct, stating the sole issue before it was the petitioners' eligibility for relief under Rule 60(b).