In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-0968V

Filed: March 15, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

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

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 JUDGMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On October 6, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation 

[“Proffer”] stating 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 undersigned 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in 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 intend 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 amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with 

Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days 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 within this definition, I will 

redact such material from public access.
2

return the overpayment by check to the Division of Injury Compensation 

Programs/HRSA. Id. 

Following the directions of the undersigned, the OSM staff attorney managing 

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 the 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 the amount of $353.66, representing reimbursement 

for the overpayment of the Medicaid lien amount 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, the parties indicate petitioner’s counsel processed the check returned to 

them from Optum and issued a check in the same amount ($353.66) 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 confirmation 

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.