E. Barbara Snyder v. HHS - MMR, other (2006)

E. Barbara Snyder, age 45 at the time of vaccination, filed a petition on January 31, 1994, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for injuries she alleged were caused by a measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine administered to her on February 10, 1992.

The case remained pending for eleven years before the special master issued a decision. On May 6, 2005, the special master issued a decision denying Ms.

Snyder's claim. Before the motion for review period ran, however, Ms.

Snyder died on April 28, 2005. Petitioner's counsel filed a Motion for Review of the special master's decision on June 6, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, counsel notified the court by telephone that Ms. Snyder had died on April 28.

The court requested a Statement of the Fact of Death in accordance with RCFC 25, which counsel filed on August 15, 2005 along with a copy of Ms. Snyder's Delaware death certificate.

On August 16, 2005, the court directed that a motion for substitution of a successor or representative be filed by November 14, 2005. Counsel filed the motion for substitution on November 14, 2005, identifying a proposed legal representative for Ms.

Snyder's estate but noting that the representative's appointment under Delaware probate procedures was not yet final. Ms.

Snyder's will had named a friend as legal representative, but that person declined to serve for health reasons and no alternate was named. On November 23, 2005, respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioner had failed to comply with RCFC 25(a)(1): the rule requires a motion for substitution to be made within 90 days after the suggestion of death on the record, and respondent argued that no "legal representative" had been timely identified.

On December 29, 2005, Dory Zatuchni of Jewish Family Services was appointed Executrix of Ms. Snyder's estate by the Register of Wills, New Castle County, Delaware, effective December 20, 2005.

Judge Wheeler, writing for the Court of Federal Claims on January 9, 2006, granted petitioner's motion for substitution and denied respondent's motion to dismiss. The court held that RCFC 25(a)(1) requires that a motion for substitution be "made" within 90 days of the suggestion of death — not that the successor or representative be appointed or approved within 90 days.

Petitioner's counsel filed the motion within 90 days of the August 16, 2005 order, satisfying the rule. The court also held that counsel qualified as a "representative" of the deceased party for purposes of filing the substitution motion; the plural "representatives" in RCFC 25(a)(1) encompasses attorneys representing a party at the time of death, as well as executors and guardians.

Citing Acebal v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 551 (2004), the court declined to apply the rule so strictly as to extinguish the petitioner's claim for failure of the Delaware probate process to move faster than the court rule's timeline.

The case caption was amended to reflect: "DORY ZATUCHNI, Executrix of the Estate of E. BARBARA SNYDER, deceased." The available case document covers only this substitution order.

The final resolution of petitioner's motion for review of the special master's May 6, 2005, decision — and the basis for the ultimate dismissal reflected in the case database — is not described in the available staging text.