David Mark Dodson, Harry Dodson and Patricia Dodson v. HHS - seizure disorder (1992)

David Mark Dodson, Harry Dodson, and Patricia Dodson filed a petition on October 1, 1990, through their attorney James B. Dodson, seeking compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for injuries suffered by David Mark Dodson.

Their petition acknowledged that it was filed without a complete medical record — noting that relevant documents spanned approximately 37 years — and stated the remaining records had not yet been compiled. The case was assigned to Chief Special Master Golkiewicz.

On December 14, 1990, the chief special master issued an order requesting the missing documentation or affidavits attesting to their unavailability, and suspending proceedings for 60 days. The order explicitly warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice.

Attorney Archie L. Hayman entered his appearance on February 22, 1991, and submitted an affidavit asserting the petition was complete except for an expert medical witness report, and that he believed no expert was necessary because the petition clearly established a Table injury.

The chief special master noted in a subsequent order that the first signs of David's neurological injury, including his seizure disorder, had in fact occurred outside the three-day timeframe required for a Table injury under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(a)(I)(D), and that expert medical opinion documenting causation was therefore required. On April 28, 1992, the chief special master issued a second show-cause order, again requiring petitioners to supply documentation and again warning of dismissal.

A third order issued July 31, 1992, extended the deadline to September 14, 1992. Petitioners supplied no compliant filings.

On August 19, 1992, a deposition of Patricia Dodson submitted by petitioners was returned unfiled because it lacked proof of service and did not comply with the court's caption and filing requirements; it was never resubmitted. On November 23, 1992, more than three months after the final deadline, the chief special master dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Because no motion for review was filed within 30 days, the clerk entered final judgment on January 4, 1993. On January 25, 1993, sixty-three days after the issuance of the special master's decision, petitioners filed a motion for review — thirty-three days past the statutory deadline.

The motion itself was defective: it lacked proof of service, failed to identify the special master's name, omitted an original copy, and contained an incorrect docket number. An additional copy filed the same day still bore the wrong docket number and failed to name the special master.

Judge Horn dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit had held in Widdoss v.

Secretary of HHS, 989 F.2d 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993), that the thirty-day period to file a motion for review under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e) is jurisdictional and runs from the date the special master issues the decision.

Because petitioners' motion was filed thirty-three days late, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The court further noted that even if petitioners had acted throughout on advice of counsel, attorney error does not constitute excusable neglect and a party is bound by the acts and omissions of its chosen representative.