# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 0968 V

Filed: March 15 , 2016

U NPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PAULA NILSEN

, *

*

Petitioner, * Repayment of Excess Award of

* Compensation; Direction of Additional

* Judgment; Special Processing Unit

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle A. Strait , Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC , for petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ACKNOWLEDGING REPAYMENT OF EXCESS COMPENSATION

AND DIRECTING ADDITIONAL JUDGMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On October 6 , 2015 , respondent filed a p roffer on a ward of compensation

[“Proffer”] statin g that petitioner should be awarded $128,516.11 consisting of

$125,000.00 compensation paid to petitioner and $3,516.11 paid to petitioner and

Optum, in satisfaction of a Medicaid lien from the State of Minnesota. Proffer at 1 (ECF

No. 34)

. On October 6, 2015, the undersign ed issued a decision awarding

compensation in the amount of $128,516.11. (ECF No. 35). Judgment entered on

October 19, 2015. ( ECF No. 37).

On January 18, 2016, petitioner filed a status report indicating that Optum had

returned $353.66 of the $3,516.11 paid to satisfy the Medicaid lien after determining a

duplicate amount was listed in the Medicaid lien payoff amount. ( ECF No. 40 ) . After

conferring with respondent’s counsel, petitioner’s counsel was told petitioner should

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in

this case, I inte nd to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat.

2899, 2913 (codified as amende d at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012 )) . In accordance with

Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitione r has 14 day s to identify and move to redact medical or

other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits withi n this definition, I will

redact such m aterial from public access.2

return the overpayment by check to the Division of Injury Compensation

Programs/HRSA. Id.

Follow ing the directions of the under signed, the OSM staff attorney m anaging

this case conferred with clerk ’ s office employees and the parties regarding the best

method for amending the judgment to properly reflect the amount awarded petitioner in

this case. See Informal Remarks dated Feb. 3 and 26, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the

parties filed a joint motion to amend the judgment in this case pursuant to Rule 60(a) of

the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. (ECF No. 41 ). The parties

request that the Clerk issue judgment reflecting t he overpayment already returned to

respondent. 2

The undersigned finds the parties ’ request to be reasonable. Petitioner ’ s Motion

is GRANTED

. Accordingly , the undersigned directs the Clerk to enter an additional

judgment in favor of respondent in t he amount of $353.66

, representing r eimbursement

for the overpayment of the Medicaid lien amoun t which already has been repaid by

petitioner.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this

decision. 3

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

2 In the motion, t he parties indicate petit i o ner ’ s counsel process ed the check re turned to

them from Optum and issued a check in the same amount ($35 3.66) which they sent to

respondent at the following address:

Ms. Cheryl Lee

Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation/HRSA

5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08N194B

Rockville, MD 20857

Joint Motion to Amend the Judgment at ¶ ¶ 5

- 6. The check was sent on February 19,

2016, delivery was made on February 23, 2016 at 10:48 am, and delivery confirm ation

was received that same day. Id. at ¶ 6. “ On March 11, 2016, Respondent confirmed

receipt of this reimbursement check. ” Id. at ¶ 7.

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party

filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.