{"package_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653","decision_granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653-cl6653010","petitioner_identifier":"Joanne Baker","is_minor":null,"age_at_vaccination":null,"age_unit_raw":null,"vaccine_type":null,"vaccination_date":null,"condition_raw":"IDDM [insulin dependent diabetes mellitus]","condition_category":"other","autism_spectrum_adjacent":0,"outcome":"dismissed","award_amount_usd":null,"decision_date":"2004-07-07","extraction_version":"gemini-v2","extracted_at":"2026-04-30T14:31:41.683628+00:00","number_of_concurrent_vaccines":null,"dose_number":null,"time_to_onset_days":null,"theory_of_causation":"Petitioner Joanne Baker, as legal representative for her son Jonathan Baker, alleged that childhood immunizations were a substantial factor in causing his insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). The Special Master denied entitlement on September 26, 2003, finding the petitioner failed to prove a prima facie case that the immunizations were a substantial factor in causing the IDDM, or that but for the vaccinations, Jonathan would not have developed IDDM. The public text does not describe the specific vaccines administered, the date of vaccination, Jonathan's age at vaccination, the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. The Special Master's decision was issued on September 26, 2003, and judgment was entered on November 10, 2003. Petitioner filed a motion for review with the Federal Circuit on January 7, 2004 (103 days later), which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Petitioner then filed a motion for review in the Court of Federal Claims on May 11, 2004 (228 days later). The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case as untimely, finding the thirty-day statutory filing period for review was jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling under the presented facts, which involved a significant, unexplained delay. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the causation theory. Petitioner's counsel and respondent's counsel are not named in the provided text. The Special Master is not named.","is_death":0,"date_of_death":null,"petition_filed_date":"2004-07-07","case_summary":"Joanne Baker, as legal representative for her son, Jonathan Baker, sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for alleged vaccine-related injuries, specifically insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). The Special Master denied entitlement on September 26, 2003, finding that the petitioner failed to prove a prima facie case that childhood immunizations were a substantial factor in causing Jonathan's IDDM, and that but for the vaccinations, he would not have developed IDDM. Judgment was entered on November 10, 2003. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 7, 2004, 103 days after the Special Master's decision. The Federal Circuit dismissed this appeal for failure to prosecute on March 24, 2004. Petitioner then filed a motion for review in the Court of Federal Claims on May 11, 2004, 228 days after the Special Master's decision. The respondent argued that the motion for review was untimely. The court considered the petitioner's arguments, including those related to the Special Master's conduct and alleged independent research, but focused on the jurisdictional timeliness of the filing. The court noted that the Vaccine Act requires a motion for review to be filed within thirty days of the Special Master's decision, and this thirty-day period is jurisdictional. The court found that petitioner's motion, filed 103 days after the decision with the Federal Circuit and 228 days after the decision with the Court of Federal Claims, was plainly untimely. The court also considered the doctrine of equitable tolling sua sponte, given the petitioner's pro se status. However, the court found that the petitioner's delay of several months without explanation did not warrant equitable tolling, distinguishing the facts from cases where tolling was permitted due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control or filing in the wrong court. The court noted that even if the filing date with the Federal Circuit were considered, it was still 73 days late. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, concluding that the motion for review was untimely and dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court directed the Clerk to dismiss the complaint.","is_minor_inferred":1,"is_pediatric_broad":1,"special_master":null,"petitioner_identifier_original":null,"caption_petitioner_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_firm":null,"petitioner_attorney_location":null,"adjudicator_name":null,"caption_people_backfilled_at":null,"attorney_canonical_keys":null,"firm_canonical_key":null,"package_title":"Baker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services","canonical_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653","plain_text_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653.txt","json_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653.json","source_documents":[{"granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653-cl6653010","title":"Baker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services","docket_text":"lead-opinion","date_issued":"2004-07-07","pdf_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6770162/baker-v-secretary-of-health-human-services/","pdf_bytes":null,"triage_decision":"keep","triage_reason":"recovered via CL opinion 6653010 (html_with_citations)","download_status":"ok","registry_pdf_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653/USCOURTS-cofc-1_99-vv-00653-cl6653010"}]}