Sabo v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 619
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- Class action settling over PTSD-based disability ratings for veterans separated 2002-2008; nine-category settlement plan changing records to reflect 50% PTSD rating for initial period and other tailored relief.
- Plaintiffs allege Service Branches violated statutes/regulations by not assigning ≥50% PTSD ratings when unfit for duty, seeking disability retirement or benefits.
- Litigation timeline included multiple stays, summary judgment motion, and eventual settlement negotiations culminating in preliminary and final approval requests.
- Court preliminarily approved the settlement in August 2011; final approval requested after notice and a fairness hearing.
- Settlement implementation includes government-led steps to modify records within six months, ongoing court jurisdiction, and non-provision for attorneys’ fees within the settlement proceeds.
- As of final approval motion, 2,176 class members opted in; 517 responded to notice, with majority approval and minimal objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. | Sabo favors final approval given defenses, strengths, and notice. | U.S. contends settlement avoids costly litigation and provides prompt relief. | Yes; Court approves settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. |
| Relative strength of plaintiffs’ case versus settlement. | Litigation risks and delays justify settlement. | Government can defend but settlement expedites relief. | Settlement approved given comparative strengths and time/resource considerations. |
| Counsel’s recommendation regarding the settlement. | Class counsel competent and diligent. | Defense counsel equally competent; no collusion. | Court trusts counsel's recommendation to approve. |
| Class reaction and notice adequacy. | Notice was clear and comprehensive; disclosure allowed informed responses. | Notice effectiveness disputed minimally; responses favorable. | Reaction favorable; objections minimal and outweighed by approvals. |
| Fairness to the entire class. | Categories tailored to diverse circumstances maintain uniform relief. | Same relief framework for all, with category-specific tailoring. | Settlement fair to entire class due to tailored, uniform relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 675 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (settlement fairness and noncollusive negotiations; deference to class counsel)
- Dauphin Island Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 90 Fed.Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (factors for evaluating settlements; discretion in weighing factors)
- King v. United States, 84 Fed.Cl. 120 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (RCFC 23 opt-in class action distinct from Rule 23 in other courts)
- Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. 1990) (considerations in evaluating settlement procedure)
- Nat’l Treasury Emp’rs Union v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 791 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (objector responses and settlement approvals in government actions)