{"package_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458","decision_granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458-cl6657764","petitioner_identifier":"Betancourt","is_minor":null,"age_at_vaccination":null,"age_unit_raw":null,"vaccine_type":null,"vaccination_date":null,"condition_raw":null,"condition_category":"other","autism_spectrum_adjacent":0,"outcome":"dismissed","award_amount_usd":null,"decision_date":"2008-04-16","extraction_version":"gemini-v2","extracted_at":"2026-04-30T14:30:29.646277+00:00","number_of_concurrent_vaccines":null,"dose_number":null,"time_to_onset_days":null,"theory_of_causation":"Vaccine and injury unknown (not stated in this CFC timeliness opinion). SM decision Dec 10, 2007. Motion for review received Jan 10, 2008 — one day after Jan 9 deadline. Vaccine Rule 17(a): filing date = clerk receipt, not certificate of service date. CFC Judge Miller Apr 16, 2008: DISMISSED untimely (Vaccine Rule 23; no extensions; Waller; Decker; equitable tolling unavailable). DB decision_date '2008-01-28' = respondent's motion to dismiss (wrong); corrected to 2008-04-16.","is_death":0,"date_of_death":null,"petition_filed_date":"2008-04-16","case_summary":"This case reached the Court of Federal Claims on a threshold question of timeliness. The special master issued a decision on December 10, 2007. Under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1) and Vaccine Rule 23, a party seeking review of a special master's decision must file a motion for review within thirty days, and Rule 23 states explicitly that no extensions of that period will be permitted. The thirty-day period from the special master's December 10, 2007 decision expired on January 9, 2008.\n\nPetitioner's certificate of service was dated January 9, 2008, but the motion for review was not received and marked filed by the clerk of court until January 10, 2008 — one day after the deadline. Under Vaccine Rule 17(a), the date a document is filed is the date it is actually received and marked filed by the clerk, not the date indicated on the certificate of service. The Court had issued an order on January 24, 2008 allowing the motion to be filed by leave of court, while expressly reserving judgment on the timeliness question. On January 28, 2008, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review as untimely. Petitioner filed no response.\n\nJudge Miller, writing for the Court of Federal Claims on April 16, 2008, granted the motion to dismiss. The court held that because the motion for review was received by the clerk one day after the thirty-day statutory limit, it was untimely and could not be considered. The court cited Waller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 76 Fed.Cl. 321 (2005), which held that the thirty-day period is not extensible even where counsel miscalculated the deadline by counting from the date the decision appeared on the electronic docket rather than the date it was filed; Decker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 51 Fed.Cl. 288 (2001), which held that the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to extend the thirty-day review period; and Acevedo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 79 Fed.Cl. 633 (2007). The clerk was directed to enter judgment in accordance with the special master's December 10, 2007 decision.","is_minor_inferred":null,"is_pediatric_broad":0,"special_master":null,"petitioner_identifier_original":null,"caption_petitioner_name":"Betancourt","petitioner_attorney_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_firm":null,"petitioner_attorney_location":null,"adjudicator_name":null,"caption_people_backfilled_at":"2026-05-05 23:46:24","attorney_canonical_keys":null,"firm_canonical_key":null,"package_title":"Betancourt v. Secretary of Health & Human Services","canonical_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458","plain_text_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458.txt","json_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458.json","source_documents":[{"granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458-cl6657764","title":"Betancourt v. Secretary of Health & Human Services","docket_text":"lead-opinion","date_issued":"2008-04-16","pdf_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6774595/betancourt-v-secretary-of-health-human-services/","pdf_bytes":null,"triage_decision":"keep","triage_reason":"recovered via CL opinion 6657764 (html_with_citations)","download_status":"ok","registry_pdf_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458/USCOURTS-cofc-1_04-vv-00458-cl6657764"}]}