Tralane Donovan v. HHS - diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, encephalopathy and of a residual seizure disorder (1993)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On September 14, 1990, Charles A. and Rose A. Donovan, as parents of Tralane Donovan, filed a petition alleging that diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccinations administered on April 24, 1979, and June 14, 1979, caused their son to develop encephalopathy and a residual seizure disorder within three days of vaccination.
They sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. After two conferences discussing deficiencies in the petition, Special Master John F.
Edwards denied entitlement on January 23, 1992, finding that the petitioners had failed to establish a prima facie case. Judgment was entered on February 25, 1992.
Neither party sought review of this decision within the mandatory 30-day period. On January 4, 1993, the petitioners filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC).
The special master referred this motion to a judge of the Court of Federal Claims. The court, through Judge Nettesheim, vacated the referral and remanded the matter with instructions to deny the motion.
The court held that the 30-day deadline for seeking review of a special master's decision is jurisdictional under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), and that a court procedural rule, such as RCFC Rule 60(b), cannot be used to extend or waive a jurisdictional limitation. The court noted that RCFC Rule 60(b) cannot be employed to toll, extend, or waive the time period in which to appeal.
No compensation was awarded.
Theory of causation
Petitioners Charles and Rose Donovan filed on September 14, 1990, on behalf of their minor son Tralane Donovan, alleging that DPT vaccinations on April 24, 1979, and June 14, 1979, caused encephalopathy and a residual seizure disorder within three days. Special Master John F. Edwards denied entitlement on January 23, 1992, finding a prima facie case was not established. Judgment was entered February 25, 1992. Petitioners filed a motion to vacate judgment under RCFC Rule 60(b) on January 4, 1993. The Court of Federal Claims, per Judge Nettesheim, vacated the referral and remanded with instructions to deny the motion, holding that the 30-day review deadline under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e) is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or extended by RCFC Rule 60(b). No award was made.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-00997