Watson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
10-882
| Fed. Cl. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Petitioner Valeria Watson filed a Vaccine Program claim (Dec 27, 2010) alleging GBS/CIDP from an influenza vaccine; parties settled and a damages stipulation was entered May 6, 2015.
- Special Master awarded attorney’s fees and costs of $26,169.80 on March 7, 2016, directing payment by check payable jointly to Petitioner and counsel Irving Gertel; Fees Judgment entered April 15, 2016.
- Counsel reported within a month that Petitioner refused to endorse the joint-check and could not be located despite repeated calls and home visits; counsel requested judgment be amended to permit reissuance of the fees check payable solely to counsel.
- Respondent opposed, arguing the motion is actually for relief under RCFC 60(b) and citing precedent refusing to alter fee-payment form when counsel cannot obtain a petitioner’s endorsement; she noted counsel has state-law remedies.
- The Special Master found counsel acted diligently (not delayed), treated the request as an RCFC 60(b)(6) motion, and concluded extraordinary circumstances existed given the age of the case, counsel’s prompt notification, and difficulties contacting the petitioner.
- Relief granted: original check voided and a new check for $26,169.80 to be issued payable solely to Irving Gertel, Esq.; clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Fees Judgment should be amended so the fees check is payable solely to counsel when petitioner refuses to endorse a jointly payable check | Counsel asked for reissuance payable to him because petitioner refused to endorse and cannot be located; counsel acted promptly and has no practical remedy to compel endorsement | Respondent argued the motion is RCFC 60 relief improperly styled; altering Vaccine Program fee judgments is inappropriate merely because petitioner won’t endorse; counsel has other remedies | Held: Special Master granted RCFC 60(b)(6) relief as extraordinary circumstances existed (prompt action, prolonged case, inability to locate petitioner); check reissued to counsel |
| Whether counsel’s delay in seeking relief undermines Rule 60(b) relief | Counsel asserted he acted within a month of receiving the check and therefore was diligent | Respondent relied on precedent denying relief where counsel delayed over a year | Held: Timeliness favored counsel here; prompt notice distinguished this case from precedent denying relief |
| Whether attorneys must exhaust state-law remedies before court will amend fee payment form | Counsel argued limited practical remedies and that the award should not be delayed | Respondent argued state-law enforcement is available and Vaccine judgments shouldn’t be routinely altered | Held: Court acknowledged state-law remedies exist but found justice favored revising payment here given case history and equity considerations |
| Whether precedent uniformly prohibits payment directly to counsel in Vaccine Act awards | Counsel cited cases allowing direct payment; Respondent cited Ortiz‑Mutilitis denying such relief | Held: Special Master found precedent mixed and concluded that in narrow, timely, and equitable circumstances direct payment is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (requires extraordinary circumstances for relief from judgment)
- Freeman v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 35 Fed. Cl. 280 (1996) (granting RCFC 60(b) relief where reopening was warranted in interest of justice)