In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-555V

Filed: August 8, 2017

Not for Publication

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

SABRINA SANTACROCE, on Behalf of *

her Minor Child, J.R., *

 *

Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION1

On July 14, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision denying petitioner’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. The undersigned found that petitioner’s counsel had ample time to 

review J.R.’s medical records and discover that petitioner did not have a reasonable basis to 

bring a vaccine claim. 

On July 17, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s July 

14, 2017 decision. Petitioner argues that the undersigned should reconsider her July 14, 2017 

decision denying attorneys’ fees and costs because she did not properly evaluate several pieces 

of evidence presented by petitioner. Specifically, petitioner argues the undersigned did not give 

the proper weight to petitioner’s affidavit, the VAERS report, or J.R.’s medical record as a 

 1Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)

(Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that 

all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets 

or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar 

information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a 

decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the 

document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within 

the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access.

Motion for reconsideration denied 
2

whole, which petitioner argues show that J.R. “experienced abnormal movements, among other

symptoms, after his March 8, 2013 vaccines. ” Mot. at 3.

Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 31, 2017. 

Respondent argues “[p]etitioner has failed to make the requisite showing to warrant 

reconsideration . . . .” Resp. at 2. Petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s response on August 3, 

2017. In her reply, petitioner reiterates the same arguments she raised in her Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

I. Legal Standard

A party seeking reconsideration must “support the motion by a showing of extraordinary 

circumstances which justify relief.” Fru-Con Constr. Corp v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298, 300 

(Fed. Cl. 1999). A motion for reconsideration must be based upon a “manifest error of law, or 

mistake of fact, and is not intended to give an unhappy litigant an additional chance to sway the 

court.” Prati v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 373, 376 (Fed. Cl. 2008). Specifically, “the moving 

party must show: (1) the occurrence of an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the 

availability of previously unavailable evidence; or (3) the necessity of allowing the motion to 

prevent manifest injustice.” Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 524, 526 (Fed. Cl. 2006). 

Where a party seeks reconsideration on the ground of manifest injustice, the party must be 

mindful that “[m]anifest” means “clearly apparent or obvious.” Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 

Fed. Cl. 555, 557 (Fed. Cl. 2002). Accordingly, a party cannot prevail on the ground of manifest 

injustice unless the party demonstrates that the asserted injustice is “apparent to the point of 

being almost indisputable.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 779, 785 (Fed. Cl. 

2006).

A motion for reconsideration will not be granted if the movant “merely reasserts . . . 

arguments previously made . . . all of which were carefully considered by the court.” Ammex, 

52 Fed. Cl. at 557. Nor will a motion for reconsideration be granted if it is “based on evidence 

that was readily available at the time” the matter was being decided. Seldovia Native Ass’n v. 

United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 593, 594 (Fed. Cl. 1996). Finally, an evaluation of a motion for 

reconsideration is to be “guided by the general understanding ‘that, at some point, judicial 

proceedings must draw to a close and the matter deemed conclusively resolved.’” Northern 

States Power Co. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 748, 749 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (quoting Withrow v. 

Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 698 (1993)). 

II. Discussion

In support of her Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner points to three pieces of evidence 

which petitioner argues the undersigned did not properly evaluate in reaching the conclusion that 

her petition was not supported by reasonable basis: her affidavit, the VAERS submission, and 

J.R.’s medical record as a whole, which petitioner asserts shows that she complained of J.R. 
3

making abnormal movements beginning after the vaccinations at issue. Petitioner’s motion does 

not fulfill any of the three Matthews criteria. 73 Fed. Cl. at 526. Petitioner does not argue that 

there has been a change in the controlling law, that any previously unavailable evidence has 

become available, or that the undersigned not reconsidering her decision would constitute 

manifest injustice. When deciding that petitioner’s claim was not supported by reasonable basis, 

the undersigned considered the case records as a whole, and therefore considered all of the pieces 

of evidence raised by petitioner in her Motion for Reconsideration. As in the Ammex case, 

petitioner is reasserting arguments that she already made and asking the undersigned to consider 

evidence that the undersigned already considered. 52 Fed. Cl. at 557. Therefore, it is not 

appropriate for the undersigned to grant petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned DENIES petitioner’s Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master