Destiny Lemire v. HHS - developmental delays and autism (2004)

On November 1, 2001, Regina and Shannon Lemire filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 on behalf of their minor daughter, Destiny Lemire. They alleged that Destiny suffered developmental delays and autism as a result of vaccines she received starting at two months of age.

The special master initially dismissed the petition on September 25, 2002, finding that it was filed outside the 36-month statute of limitations. The special master determined that Destiny first manifested symptoms in September 1998, or possibly as early as April 1998, but the petition was not filed until November 2001.

Judgment was entered in favor of the Respondent on October 30, 2002, after the period for seeking review expired. The petitioners did not appeal this dismissal.

On July 31, 2003, the Lemires sought relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (RCFC).

They based their motion on a conflicting decision in the case of Setnes v. U.S., decided June 13, 2003, which addressed a similar statute of limitations issue.

The special master granted this motion, reinstating the petition on September 12, 2003, on equitable grounds, stating that it would be unfair for the Setnes petitioners to proceed while their case was dismissed. The Respondent filed a Motion for Review of this reinstatement order on October 10, 2003.

The Court of Federal Claims, in an order dated March 5, 2004, dismissed the Respondent's motion without prejudice. The Court held that the special master's order reinstating the claim was not a final decision, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review it at that stage.

The Court noted that the Respondent had preserved its right to appeal the special master's decision at the appropriate time, after a final decision on the merits. The case was remanded to the Office of the Special Master.

The public decision does not describe the specific vaccines administered, the exact dates of vaccination, the specific symptoms observed, any medical tests performed, or the treatments received. The decision also does not name the petitioner's counsel or the respondent's counsel.