Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01187/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denise Greenberg
Appellant
Howard Greenberg
Appellant
J.G.
Appellant
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HOWARD GREENBERG, DENISE GREENBERG, 

PARENTS OF J.G., A MINOR,

Petitioners-Appellants

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1187

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:08-vv-00024-TCW, Judge Thomas C. 

Wheeler.

______________________ 

Decided: May 6, 2016 

______________________ 

HOWARD GREENBERG, DENISE GREENBERG, J.G., Kihei, 

HI, pro se.

HEATHER LYNN PEARLMAN, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, RUPA BHATTACHARYYA, VINCENT J.

MATANOSKI. 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2016
2 GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

When he was one-year old, J.G., child of Howard and 

Denise Greenberg, received a measles, mumps, and 

rubella vaccination. One year later, he was diagnosed 

with a form of autism. A few years after J.G.’s diagnosis, 

the Greenbergs filed a petition with the United States 

Court of Federal Claims seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of the 

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq. A special master

dismissed their petition as untimely and for failure to 

show that J.G. suffered a relevant post-vaccination injury, 

and the Court of Federal Claims entered final judgment. 

The Greenbergs did not appeal from that judgment, but 

they sought post-judgment relief by filing a motion for 

reconsideration. The special master denied their motion,

and the Court of Federal Claims affirmed. Because the 

special master’s refusal to reconsider his decision showed 

no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

J.G. was born on April 10, 2003. He passed all developmental milestones at several “well-child” doctor visits 

during his first year. On April 13, 2004, J.G. received a 

vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). 

Between that visit and his 15-month well-child visit, the 

Greenbergs called J.G.’s doctors at least three times, 

concerned about J.G.’s swollen gums and fussiness (the 

medical notes refer to molars coming in), bumps on his 

limbs and torso, and an allergic reaction to peanuts. At 

his 15- and 18-month well-child visits in July and October

2004, J.G.’s medical records show him continuing to meet 

all developmental goals. And the medical notes record 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2016
GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH 3

“none” next to “shot reaction” through J.G.’s first 18 

months. 

At his two-year well-child visit, J.G.’s parents raised 

concerns about his tantrums, screeching, and limited 

speech. Half a year later, in January 2006, a pediatrician 

determined that J.G. had a significant speech delay, 

unusual behavior patterns, and impaired social interactions. In the pediatrician’s opinion, J.G.’s behavior was 

consistent with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a 

variant of autism. 

On January 14, 2008, the Greenbergs filed, in the 

Court of Federal Claims, a petition alleging that J.G.’s 

MMR vaccine caused his autism and that the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program thus required

compensation. To show entitlement to compensation, the 

Greenbergs needed to show by a preponderance of the 

evidence either (a) that J.G. had received a vaccine listed 

on the Vaccine Injury Table and suffered an injury listed 

on the Table as corresponding to that vaccine (a “table 

injury”), without additional proof of causation, or (b) that 

administration of a Table-listed vaccine had actually 

caused or significantly aggravated some injury not listed 

on the Table for that vaccine. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-13(a)(1), 

300aa-11(c)(1); Cedillo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

617 F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Autism was (and is) 

not a table injury for the MMR vaccine. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-14; 42 C.F.R. § 100.3.

The court assigned the Greenbergs’ petition to a special master. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(a)(1), 300aa-12(d). 

Initially, the Greenbergs’ petition was considered during a 

multi-case proceeding about autism—the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. See Cedillo, 617 F.3d at 1334; Hazlehurst v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 604 F.3d 1343, 

1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010). When that proceeding ended, the 

Greenbergs filed an amended petition, seeking compensation only for a table injury based on the allegation that 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2016
4 GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH

J.G. had suffered an encephalopathy within 15 days of 

receiving the April 2004 MMR vaccine. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-14(a)(II)(B). 

On December 8, 2014, the special master dismissed 

the Greenbergs’ petition. Greenberg v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 08-24V, 2014 WL 7496604, at *1 (Fed. 

Cl. Office of Special Masters Dec. 8, 2014). He first concluded that their petition was time-barred. J.G. received 

his MMR vaccine on April 13, 2004, and if his symptoms 

began within 15 days (as alleged), the petition for compensation had to be filed within 36 months of April 28, 

2004, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2), i.e., April 28, 2007. But 

the Greenbergs filed their petition in January 2008, 

beyond the due date. Greenberg, 2014 WL 7496604, at 

*8–9. The special master also found that equitable tolling 

did not excuse the lateness of the petition, rejecting the

argument that the government’s endorsement of certain 

vaccine studies was fraudulent and prevented a timely 

filing. Id. at *9–10. 

The special master alternatively determined that the 

Greenbergs had failed to demonstrate by a preponderance 

of the evidence that J.G. had suffered, within 15 days of 

receiving his MMR vaccine, an “acute encephalopathy,” 

followed by at least six months of a “chronic encephalopathy.” Id. at *13–15 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2)). The 

special master addressed two pieces of evidence concerning the onset of the alleged acute encephalopathy. One 

was a December 2012 letter, in which Mrs. Greenberg 

stated that the Greenbergs “first noticed that [J.G.] was 

sick when he had a fever and seemed very sensitive to his 

surroundings like to light and sound” and “just seemed 

weak and out of it and very irritable”; the other was an 

undated letter from Dr. Kevin Passer confirming the 

consistency of the descriptions in Mrs. Greenberg’s letter

with an acute encephalopathy. Id. at *14. Because, 

however, those letters did not state when J.G. experienced 

the described symptoms, the special master found them to 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2016
GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH 5

be insufficient proof of the onset of an acute encephalopathy within 15 days of J.G.’s MMR vaccination. Id. at *14. 

Moreover, the special master found that J.G.’s irritability 

and sensitivity to his surroundings did not indicate “a 

significantly decreased level of consciousness,” a defining 

symptom of an acute encephalopathy. Id. (citing 42 

C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2)(i)). The special master also concluded 

that another letter by Dr. John Green showed no more 

than that J.G. suffered a metabolic encephalopathy, a 

type of encephalopathy not covered by the Vaccine Injury 

Table. Id. at *15 n.17 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2)(iii)). 

Likewise, none of J.G.’s medical records between his oneyear well-child visit (when he received the MMR vaccine) 

and his two-year visit indicated that J.G. had suffered

symptoms of an acute or chronic encephalopathy. Id. at 

*14.

The Greenbergs did not timely file a motion seeking 

review of the special master’s decision by the Court of 

Federal Claims. Accordingly, the special master’s decision became a final judgment on January 8, 2015. 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e); U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims, App’x B, 

Vaccine R. 23 (Vaccine Rule 23). 

On February 3, 2015, the Greenbergs moved for reconsideration of the special master’s decision. The special 

master, to whom the motion was assigned, denied the 

motion on March 20, 2015. He considered the motion 

under Vaccine Rule 36(a)(2), which allows a petitioner, 

after entry of judgment, to move “for reconsideration 

pursuant to [U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims R. (RCFC)] 59 or otherwise seek[ ] relief from a judgment or order pursuant to 

RCFC 60.” 

Insofar as the motion would be read to seek reconsideration of the December 2014 special master’s decision, 

the special master deemed it untimely and also outside 

RCFC 59 because the Greenbergs had not sought judicial 

review of the December 2014 decision. Insofar as the 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/06/2016
6 GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH

motion would be read to challenge the January 2015 

judgment, the special master concluded that RCFC 60(a) 

was unavailable because the Greenbergs did not allege 

any “clerical mistakes,” “oversights,” or “omissions” in 

that judgment. The special master also rejected reconsideration under RCFC 60(b). Because Dr. Passer’s and Dr. 

Green’s letters did not support the Greenbergs’ table 

encephalopathy claim, the special master determined that 

oral testimony from the Greenbergs could not change the

result, and he ultimately concluded that no other reason 

justified reconsideration of his no-encephalopathy finding. 

And the special master again rejected the Greenbergs’

equitable-tolling argument, while adding that, even if 

their petition had been timely filed, the Greenbergs’

failure to prove a table encephalopathy independently 

prevented them from receiving compensation. 

On March 12, 2015, before the special master ruled on 

the reconsideration motion, the Greenbergs filed a “Notice 

of Review” in this court. On June 10, 2015, we concluded 

that we lacked jurisdiction, because our jurisdiction does 

not encompass direct review of special masters’ decisions. 

J.A. 42; see Grimes v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human 

Servs., 988 F.2d 1196, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We transferred the Greenbergs’ notice of review to the Court of 

Federal Claims in part—not for review by that court of 

the January 2015 judgment (time had run out on obtaining any such review), but for possible review of the special 

master’s March 2015 order denying reconsideration.

The Court of Federal Claims, acting “in the interest of 

justice,” reviewed and affirmed the special master’s order 

refusing reconsideration as not “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with 

law.” Greenberg v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

08-24V, 2015 WL 6684703, at *2–3 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 2, 2015). 

The Greenbergs now appeal from the Court of Federal 

Claims’ decision. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/06/2016
GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH 7

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ affirmance of the special master’s decision denying reconsideration. See Hines v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human 

Servs., 940 F.2d 1518, 1523–24 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In effect, 

we review the special master’s underlying decision, setting it aside only if arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See

id. at 1524; Vaccine Rule 36(b)(7). The special master 

determined, and the Greenbergs do not dispute, that the

motion for reconsideration should be evaluated only under 

Vaccine Rule 36(a)(2), and even then only as seeking postjudgment relief under RCFC 60(b). 

The special master did not abuse his discretion in 

finding no Rule 60(b) ground justifying reconsideration of 

his determination that the Greenbergs had failed to show 

that J.G. suffered a table encephalopathy. In his December 2014 decision, the special master correctly described 

the statutes and regulations governing entitlement to 

compensation for a table encephalopathy, and he discussed at length the application of those laws to the 

Greenbergs’ medical records, affidavits, and letters. 

Regarding J.G.’s alleged table encephalopathy, the 

Greenbergs have pointed us to no evidence or arguments 

undermining the adverse finding on that issue, let alone 

under the demanding standard for Rule 60(b) relief.

The special master likewise acted within his discretion in rejecting the Greenbergs’ argument that reconsideration was warranted because they had been denied an 

evidentiary hearing before the December 2014 decision. A 

special master may, but is not required to, conduct an 

evidentiary hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3)(B)(v); 

Vaccine Rule 8(d). The record does not show that the 

Greenbergs requested an evidentiary hearing, although 

they could have. See Vaccine Rule 6(b). In any event, the 

Greenbergs filed at least 140 exhibits and participated in 

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/06/2016
8 GREENBERG v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH

several status conferences with the special masters assigned to their petition, and they have not identified what 

additional evidence they would have submitted or arguments they would have made at an evidentiary hearing or 

how such evidence and arguments could have changed the 

outcome of their case. In these circumstances, we see no 

abuse of discretion in rejecting the lack-of-evidentiaryhearing basis for reconsideration.

Last, the special master did not abuse his discretion 

in refusing reconsideration even if equitable tolling might 

have excused the Greenbergs’ untimely petition. The 

equitable-tolling ruling made no difference to the outcome

here, because the special master independently rejected 

the Greenbergs’ claim on the merits, finding that the 

Greenbergs had failed to show that J.G. suffered a table 

encephalopathy. Having already concluded that the 

special master need not have reconsidered his tableencephalopathy determination, we do not disturb the 

resolution of the Greenbergs’ equitable-tolling argument.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court 

of Federal Claims is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1187 Document: 19-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/06/2016