RODELA et al v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-236V
Filed: November 3, 2025
MATTHEW RODELA and CASANDRA
HOGAN as Legal Representatives of
the Estate of V.S.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Special Master Horner
Curtis R. Webb, Monmouth, OR, for petitioners.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 17, 2017, Matthew Rodela and Casandra Hogan (“petitioners”) filed
a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,
42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), on behalf of their deceased
daughter, V.S.R. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioners allege that the Measles, Mumps, Rubella
(“MMR”) vaccination that V.S.R. received on February 20, 2015 caused her to suffer a
Table Injury of encephalitis that ultimately resulted in her death. (Id.)
On April 5, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioners entitled to
compensation for a Table Injury of encephalitis. (ECF No. 125.) On August 8, 2024,
respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner
should be awarded $310,000.00, including $250,000.00 representing “compensation for
the statutory benefit for a vaccine-related death,” and $60,000.00 representing
“compensation for past pain and suffering.” (ECF No. 132.) In the Proffer, respondent
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the document will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 8

2
represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as
a whole, I find that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer,3 I award petitioners a lump
sum payment of $310,000.00, representing $250,000.00 in compensation for the
statutory benefit for a vaccine-related death and $60,000.00 in compensation for
past pain and suffering, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioners’
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to the Estate of Violet Skye
Rodela. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 After the Proffer was filed, the undersigned issued a Decision Awarding Damages in accordance with
the terms stated in the Proffer, and a judgement was entered, which was consistent with that Decision.
However, on October 30, 2025, the parties’ filed a joint motion for relief from judgment and requested a
limited amendment of the original judgment regarding the form of payment. (ECF No. 142.) The
undersigned granted the parties’ motion and instructed the Clerk to vacate the judgment and withdraw the
prior decision. (ECF No. 143.) The undersigned now issues an updated Decision Awarding Damages,
which incorporates the parties’ requested modification with respect to the form of payment but is
otherwise in accordance with the terms of the Proffer.
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MATTHEW RODELA and CASANDRA
HOGAN as legal representatives of the
estate of V.S.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17-236V
Special Master Horner
ECF
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 17, 2017, Matthew Rodela and Casandra Hogan (“petitioners”) filed a
petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), on behalf of their deceased child, V.S.R., alleging
that V.S.R. suffered an encephalitis and subsequently died following the administration of
Hepatitis A; Haemophilus influenzae type B; pneumococcal conjugate; measles, mumps, and
rubella; and varicella vaccines she received on February 20, 2015. Petition at 1-2. On
November 30, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report recommending that entitlement to
compensation be denied. ECF No. 48. On April 5, 2024, Special Master Horner issued a Ruling
on Entitlement finding petitioners entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 125.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of Special Master
Horner’s April 5, 2024, entitlement decision.
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 8

2
I. 	Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioners should be
awarded the following, and requests that the Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment
award:
a. 	a lump sum payment of $250,000.00, which represents compensation for the
statutory benefit for a vaccine-related death, and
b. 	a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, which represents compensation for past pain
and suffering.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioners are entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(2) and (a)(4). Petitioners agree.
II. 	Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that petitioners be awarded a lump sum payment of
$310,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioners, Matthew Rodela and Casandra
Hogan, as personal representatives of the estate of V.S.R.2 Petitioners agree.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 If for some reason petitioners are not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve
as the personal representatives of the estate of V.S.R. at the time a payment pursuant to this
Proffer is to be made, then any such payment shall be paid to the party or parties appointed by a
court of competent jurisdiction to serve as personal representative(s) of the estate of V.S.R. upon
submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 8

3
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Lynn C. Schlie
LYNN C. SCHLIE
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-3667
E-mail: lynn.schlie@usdoj.gov
Dated: August 8, 2024
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 8

1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-236V
Filed: October 30, 2025
MATTHEW RODELA and CASANDRA
HOGAN as Legal Representatives of
the Estate of V.S.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Curtis R. Webb, Monmouth, OR, for petitioners.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ENTRY
OF AMENDED JUDGMENT1
On February 17, 2017, Matthew Rodela and Casandra Hogan (“petitioners”) filed
a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et
seq. (2018) (“Vaccine Act”),2 on behalf of their deceased daughter, V.S.R. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioners alleged that the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (“MMR”) vaccination that V.S.R.
received on February 20, 2015 caused her to suffer a Table Injury of encephalitis that
ultimately resulted in her death. (Id.)
On April 5, 2024, the undersigned issued a ruling on entitlement, finding
petitioners entitled to compensation. (ECF No. 125.) Thereafter, on August 8, 2024, a
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the document will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. 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 Within this decision, all citation to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-10-34.
Special Master Horner
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 8

2
decision was issued awarding petitioners damages. (ECF No. 133.) Judgment entered
on September 12, 2024. (ECF No. 136.) In accordance with the undersigned’s
decision awarding damages, the judgment awarded petitioners “a lump sum payment of
$310,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.” (Id.)
On October 30, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion for relief from the September
12, 2024 judgment and seeking a limited amendment of the judgement. (ECF No. 142.)
The parties represent that petitioners’ bank will not accept a check addressed to
petitioners. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, the parties seek modification of the judgment
regarding the form of payment, and request that compensation be paid through an ACH
deposit to petitioners’ counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to the Estate of
Violet Skye Rodela. (Id. at 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the parties’ joint
motion is GRANTED.
Vaccine Rule 36 allows parties in this program to seek relief from judgment via
RCFC 60. See Vaccine Rule 36(a). Because this case has never been assigned to a
judge for review, any motion pursuant to Vaccine Rule 36 is directed to the special
master. See Vaccine Rule 36(a)(2). The special master must file a written ruling on the
motion that is then subject to a motion for review. See Vaccine Rule 36(b).
RCFC 60(b) sets forth six circumstances under which the court may relieve a
party from a final judgment or order. Specifically:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under RCFC 59(b);
(3) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) The judgment is void;
(5) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) Any other reason that justifies relief.
The Federal Circuit has indicated that RCFC 60(b) is a remedial provision that
must therefore be liberally construed. Patton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25
F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, because judgments are intended to be
final, relief under RCFC 60(b) requires “extraordinary circumstances,” Kenzora v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 126 Fed. Cl. 588, 595-96 (2016), and “should be used
sparingly,” G.G.M. ex rel. Mora v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-421V, 2015
WL 1275389, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2015), mot. for rev. denied, 122 Fed.
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 8

3
Cl. 199 (2015), aff’d, 673 F. App’x 991 (Fed Cir. 2016). The balancing of these
considerations is generally a discretionary determination. DiMasi v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 2022-1854, 2023 WL 4697122, at *7 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023).
In this case, the parties learned, following the entry of judgment, that petitioners’
bank would not accept a check written to the petitioners. (ECF No. 142, p. 2.)
Petitioners’ counsel represents that in order for the bank to accept the check, it must be
addressed to the Estate of Violet Skye Rodela, or for compensation to be paid through
an ACH deposit to petitioners’ counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to the
Estate of Violet Skye Rodela. (Id.) Moreover, the relief sought by the instant motion is
requested jointly by both parties. The parties argue that in accordance with RCFC
60(b)(6), the relief sought is justified to complete payment of the damages awarded to
petitioners. The undersigned agrees. Petitioners have already been found entitled to
compensation and awarded damages in this case. The Vaccine Program has a strong
interest in ensuring petitioners receive the compensation awarded under the Vaccine
Act. Therefore, exercising my discretion, I find that the parties have demonstrated that
relief from judgment is warranted in this case.
Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is hereby
instructed to VACATE the judgment entered on September 12, 2024 (ECF No. 136),
and to WITHDRAW the Decision Awarding Damages issued on August 8, 2024 and
published on September 3, 2024 (ECF Nos. 133-134). An updated Decision Awarding
Damages will be issued separately with the corrected information.
The amount of petitioners’ award is unaffected by this Order. Pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 36(c), in the event that an original judgment awarding a petitioner
damages is modified in accordance with RCFC 60, “such damages must be calculated
based on the date of the original judgment, unless the ruling of the special master or the
court directs otherwise.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
Case 1:17-vv-00236-UNJ Document 149 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 8