Williams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
19-1269V
Fed. Cl.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Michael Ray Williams filed a petition for compensation, alleging injury from an influenza vaccine under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
- The Special Master dismissed Williams' petition; he then timely filed a motion for review—but without the required supporting memorandum.
- Williams also requested permission to file an overlength memorandum but did not attach the memorandum itself or seek an extension to file it later.
- The respondent (Secretary of Health and Human Services) moved to dismiss the motion for review as defective due to its lack of a supporting memorandum.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding the memorandum was required to accompany the motion for review; Williams moved for reconsideration.
- The court denied reconsideration, reaffirming mandatory rule requirements regarding simultaneous filing of the memorandum and motion for review.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | HHS's (Respondent's) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing the motion for review alone, without a supporting memorandum, was sufficient | Timely filing conferred jurisdiction; memorandum need not be contemporaneous | Motion for review without memorandum violates Vaccine Rule 24(a) | Motion for review must be accompanied by memorandum; not sufficient otherwise |
| Whether Vaccine Rule 24(a) requires the memorandum to be filed within thirty days | No explicit 30-day deadline in the rule | Memorandum must accompany motion filed within 30 days | The rules operate together; memorandum must be filed within 30 days |
| Whether failure to file the memorandum contemporaneously is waivable or harmless | Failure should not foreclose review; no explicit penalty | Rule is mandatory if raised; not subject to harmless error | Rule is mandatory and must be enforced if invoked |
| Whether requesting permission to file an overlength memorandum preserved rights | Motion for leave sufficed; no need for actual extension request | Leave request does not excuse late/missing memorandum | Only actual extension request within deadline preserves right |
Key Cases Cited
- Widdoss v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 989 F.2d 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Statutory 30-day filing requirement is jurisdictional and non-waivable)
- Hervey v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 88 F.3d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Jurisdictional nature of the 30-day review deadline in Vaccine Program)
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. 188 (2019) (Mandatory claim-processing rules must be enforced if properly invoked)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 583 U.S. 17 (2017) (Mandatory claim-processing rules must be enforced unless waived)
- Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116 (2017) (Mandatory claim-processing rules are not subject to harmless-error analysis)
- McIntosh v. United States, 601 U.S. 330 (2024) (Actions after mandatory deadlines are barred if timely objected to)