Mora v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
673 F. App'x 991
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- G.G.M., born 2010, received an influenza vaccine on Sept 5, 2012 and developed complete transverse myelitis two days later, resulting in paralysis.
- Petitioner (Ms. Lorena Mora, on behalf of G.G.M.) filed a Vaccine Act petition seeking compensation; parties later engaged in settlement talks and petitioner decided to dismiss the Vaccine Act petition to pursue a civil suit against the vaccine manufacturer.
- The Special Master treated the parties’ agreement as an oral stipulation to dismissal, issued a dismissal decision, and the Clerk entered judgment on Aug 29, 2014.
- Petitioner sued Sanofi in state federal court; that suit was dismissed (Bruesewitz-based preemption of design-defect/failure-to-warn claims). Petitioner’s counsel admitted he had not researched Vaccine Act preemption.
- Petitioner moved under RCFC Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) to set aside the Vaccine Act dismissal (arguing counsel’s mistake/gross negligence); the Special Master denied relief and the Court of Federal Claims affirmed.
- Amicus Sanofi argued (and petitioner later asserted) the Special Master’s order was not a proper §300aa-12(d)(3) “decision” and thus the clerk’s judgment was unauthorized; the government conceded a Rule 21(a)(3) order concluding proceedings (not a judgment) should have issued but argued the dismissal was with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is warranted for counsel’s gross negligence leading to voluntary dismissal | Counsel’s gross negligence/constructive abandonment is extraordinary and not attributable to petitioner; warrants relief | Special Master and government: counsel’s erroneous legal advice was not abandonment or extraordinary; no grave miscarriage of justice | Court affirmed denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief — no abuse of discretion by Special Master |
| Whether counsel’s mistake qualifies as excusable neglect under RCFC Rule 60(b)(1) | Counsel’s ignorance of Vaccine Act law constitutes mistake/excusable neglect | Special Master: legal mistake by counsel is not excusable neglect for Rule 60(b)(1) relief | Denied — attorney’s mistake not excusable neglect |
| Whether the Special Master issued a proper §300aa‑12(d)(3) “decision” such that the Clerk could enter judgment | Petitioner (later) and Sanofi: Special Master did not issue a merits decision with findings/conclusions; judgment was unauthorized and dismissal should have been without prejudice | Government: judgment could be valid because petitioner sought dismissal to pursue civil suit (i.e., dismissal with prejudice was effectively requested) | Court declined to decide; these arguments were not raised below and must be presented first to the Special Master (affirmed procedural disposition) |
| Whether petitioner was entitled to relief based on prejudice from mistaken entry of judgment | Petitioner: mistaken judgment entry prevented refiling within statute of limitations and prejudiced G.G.M. | Government: even if judgment entry was procedural error, dismissal was with prejudice; petitioner could not refile | Court did not reach merits; noted successive Rule 60(b) motions possible and one-year bar inapplicable to Rule 60(b)(6) here |
Key Cases Cited
- Moberly ex rel. Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for Court of Federal Claims review of Special Master)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (U.S. 2011) (Vaccine Act preempts design‑defect claims against vaccine manufacturers)
- Patton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir.) (Rule 60(b) should be liberally construed to do substantial justice)
- Saunders v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir.) (standards of review for Special Master factual, legal, and discretionary rulings)
- Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir.) (attorney abandonment can constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying Rule 60(b) relief)
- Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518 (9th Cir.) (relief under Rule 60(b)(6) where counsel virtually abandoned and misled client)