Joshua Vessels v. HHS - autism (2005)

On March 11, 2002, William and Shannon Vessels filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their minor son, Joshua Vessels. They alleged that certain vaccines administered to Joshua caused his autism.

Special Master Millman initially dismissed the petition on September 25, 2002, determining that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as the first symptoms of Joshua's autism manifested more than 36 months prior to the petition's filing. The statute of limitations requires that a petition be filed within 36 months of the first symptom or manifestation of the injury.

Following this dismissal, the Court of Federal Claims decided the case of Seines v. Secretary, which held that for autism claims, the statute of limitations could not begin to run until a medical diagnosis if the initial symptoms were indistinguishable from typical childhood behavior.

Relying on Seines, the Vessels petitioned for relief from the judgment under Vaccine Rule 36. Special Master Millman granted this relief and reinstated the case.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services appealed this decision to the Court of Federal Claims. The Court, in an opinion dated June 1, 2005, vacated the Special Master's order and denied the petitioners' motion for relief from judgment.

The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain Rule 60 motions and to share this jurisdiction with special masters under Vaccine Rule 36. However, it held that a subsequently issued persuasive precedent, such as the Seines decision, is not a sufficient ground for relief from a final judgment.

The Court reasoned that while Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances, a change in the law alone does not constitute such circumstances. The Court noted that the petitioners had not sought timely review of the initial dismissal and that the Vaccine Act's purpose does not extend to compensating all victims, but rather to provide compensation for timely claims.

Therefore, the case remained dismissed.